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.

 PredaKhaine wrote:
This is why it needs faq'ing.

I disagree, unless Games Workshop intended the rule to be other than how it's written.

Because we only ever get as far as the argument stage.

I don't think its possible to reach a consensus on this one.

I agree.

PS: No one thought the earth was flat, that was a myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

Come now, you can do better than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Large events have FAQ'ed providing it an extra shot. Not saying it is the correct ruling, but acknowledging there is more than one way it is being intepreted which would indicate an FAQ would be nice to clear the issue up.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 PredaKhaine wrote:
This is why it needs faq'ing.

I disagree, unless Games Workshop intended the rule to be other than how it's written.

Because we only ever get as far as the argument stage.

I don't think its possible to reach a consensus on this one.

I agree.

PS: No one thought the earth was flat, that was a myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

Come now, you can do better than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

It can be read both ways.
If your interpretation is entirely correct and has no holes then
A)Why is this thread here?
B)Why is this on the eldar faq thread?
C)Why is a consensus never reached on this?

(I'm not arguing for or against - I just think it needs faq'ing - if only to stop the arguing.I have also never used this)

 Mr. Shine wrote:

And if you went back in time and asked the shape of the earth many experts would tell you it was flat. Arguments to authority often don't work because they're still wrong on the relevant issues.

Then lets ask all the 'experts' from Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century

I disagreed with your statement as your statement was 'you can't ask someone in authority to clarify something because they'll be wrong too.'
However I made a joke instead because I didn't want to join in on the argument. And now I have

 PredaKhaine wrote:
It can be read both ways.
If your interpretation is entirely correct and has no holes then
A)Why is this thread here?
B)Why is this on the eldar faq thread?
C)Why is a consensus never reached on this?

Wishful thinking and poor reading.

Then lets ask all the 'experts' from Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century

I disagreed with your statement as your statement was 'you can't ask someone in authority to clarify something because they'll be wrong too.'

No, what I said was that arguments to authority are poor arguments because they are often wrong. Point being that the fact someone in authority said something does not necessarily make it correct or true.

 Zagman wrote:
Look up the definition of "his".

It means association or ownership. Therefore the Icarus Lascannon is "his" weapon, association, in regards to Fast Shot allowing a second shot.

Pretty sure the rule says he fires it "instead of his weapon". This would hint he doesn't own it...

MarkyMark wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
Look up the definition of "his".

It means association or ownership. Therefore the Icarus Lascannon is "his" weapon, association, in regards to Fast Shot allowing a second shot.

So this is MY forum, seeing as I am using it?. He is assoicated with his gun, and he owns his gun, for the gun emplacment he is using it instead of his own gun. (Say i was driving around in a stolen car, police wont do nothing right, i am using it after all so by assoication its my car?. Dont think I would try that one to be honest same as I wouldnt try to say dakka is mine.)

Just imagine a exarch on the krakstorm....

Mr. Shine wrote:

deathmagiks wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
Look up the definition of "his".

It means association or ownership. Therefore the Icarus Lascannon is "his" weapon, association, in regards to Fast Shot allowing a second shot.

Wrong. "His" is the possessive form of "he". Possessive. Ownership. The model is using the Icarus Lascannon but does not own it; it is still not the model's weapon.

grendel083 wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
Look up the definition of "his".

It means association or ownership. Therefore the Icarus Lascannon is "his" weapon, association, in regards to Fast Shot allowing a second shot.

Pretty sure the rule says he fires it "instead of his weapon". This would hint he doesn't own it...

And no one actually looked up the definition...

His can mean use or possession. His is not simply the possessive form of he.


Here is the best example I can think of off hand, "His desk is located in his room which is in his house. When at school his teacher told him to sit patiently at his desk in the classroom."

We have a couple of different uses of "his".

The boy owns/posses a desk in his room, "his desk".
The boy uses/associated with a room in his house, "his room".
The boy is associated with a particular house which the boy's parents own, "his house".
The boy is associated with a particular teacher, he does not own nor does he possess them, "his teacher".
The boy is using/associated with a particular desk in a classroom, which is owned by the school, "his desk".

"his desk" can mean either use or possession as clearly demonstrated above, just as it can mean use or possession in the Fast Shot and Gun Emplacement rules. "His Weapon" can mean either use or possession and therefore as written Fast Shot works. You may argue RAI, but cannot choose a very narrow and selective definition of "his".

Here is one more scholastic example.

All students come to class and are required to pick a up a number 2 pencil and their scan-tron sheet from the front of the room. During the course of the exam Johnny broke his pencil causing him to draw a huge line across his exam.

Johnny broke "his pencil", the one he does not own, but merely possesses for the duration of the exam in lieu of his own. Kind of sounds like using a gun emplacement for a phase instead of your own weapon.

Fast Shot merely specifies "his weapon" which can refer to either the weapon the model has in wargear, or the weapon he is firing. RAW Fast Shot works on a gun emplaement until an FAQ comes out to say otherwise.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 PredaKhaine wrote:
It can be read both ways.
If your interpretation is entirely correct and has no holes then
A)Why is this thread here?
B)Why is this on the eldar faq thread?
C)Why is a consensus never reached on this?

Wishful thinking and poor reading.

And now read Zagmans post above. Is that 'wishful thinking and poor reading'?
If you've finished trying to win the argument through being disparaging about posters, please refute the above.

As I said -this needs faq'ing.

 Zagman wrote:
And no one actually looked up the definition...

His can mean use or possession. His is not simply the possessive form of he.


Here is the best example I can think of off hand, "His desk is located in his room which is in his house. When at school his teacher told him to sit patiently at his desk in the classroom."

We have a couple of different uses of "his".

The boy owns/posses a desk in his room, "his desk".
The boy uses/associated with a room in his house, "his room".
The boy is associated with a particular house which the boy's parents own, "his house".
The boy is associated with a particular teacher, he does not own nor does he possess them, "his teacher".
The boy is using/associated with a particular desk in a classroom, which is owned by the school, "his desk".

"his desk" can mean either use or possession as clearly demonstrated above, just as it can mean use or possession in the Fast Shot and Gun Emplacement rules. "His Weapon" can mean either use or possession and therefore as written Fast Shot works. You may argue RAI, but cannot choose a very narrow and selective definition of "his".

Here is one more scholastic example.

All students come to class and are required to pick a up a number 2 pencil and their scan-tron sheet from the front of the room. During the course of the exam Johnny broke his pencil causing him to draw a huge line across his exam.

Johnny broke "his pencil", the one he does not own, but merely possesses for the duration of the exam in lieu of his own. Kind of sounds like using a gun emplacement for a phase instead of your own weapon.

Fast Shot merely specifies "his weapon" which can refer to either the weapon the model has in wargear, or the weapon he is firing. RAW Fast Shot works on a gun emplaement until an FAQ comes out to say otherwise.

I get what you're saying here, I really do but if the gun emplacement rule states that the model fires it INSTEAD of his own weapon, then this seems to indicate that a gun emplacement is not his weapon. The word instead means:

http://dictionary.reference.com/

1. as a substitute or replacement; in the place or stead of someone or something: We ordered tea but were served coffee instead.
2. in preference; as a preferred or accepted alternative: The city has its pleasures, but she wished instead for the quiet of country life.
3. instead of, in place of; in lieu of: You can use milk instead of cream in this recipe.

So the wording is indicating that the emplacement is not his weapon, but a weapon being used in place of his own weapon. So the weapon doesn't become his weapon because he still has his own weapon, he is just not using his own weapon for the purpose of attack.

The word "his" can be used to mean a temporary ownership and not a full possesion like you indicate in your examples, but the wording here is indicating that when firing a gun emplacement it is not his weapon and he doesn't even own it temporarily. If you drive your friends car then it is not your car, you are just driving your friends car. It doesn't belong to you in the slightest and doesn't even temporarily belong to you. A teacher might be yours temporarily or a pencil might be yours temporarily as long as they're assigned to you, but it is possible for a person to use an object without it being "his".

So Fast Shot allows a model to shoot an extra shot with "his" weapon. However a gun emplacement says he can shoot the emplacement INSTEAD of his own weapon. The original weapon does not stop being his and the emplacement does not suddenly become his due to this wording.

Now lets look at the word his:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/his?s=t

1. the possessive form of he (used as an attributive or predicative adjective): His coat is the brown one. This brown coat is his. Do you mind his speaking first?
2. that or those belonging to him: His was the cleverest remark of all. I borrowed a tie of his.

Now lets go back to the car driving example. Lets say that Mike is driving his friends car. It is incorrect for someone to say Mike is driving his car, because the car doesn't belong to him, not even temporarily.

Every Eldar player is going to say that it works and every non eldar player is going to say it doesn't. There needs to be an FAQ for this. I know at my FLGS we have ruled that it does work as he is using his skills that he has learned and applying them to the gun of his choosing. Its not like they specialized in Fast Shooting with only 1 type of weapon.

 Xerics wrote:
Every Eldar player is going to say that it works and every non eldar player is going to say it doesn't. There needs to be an FAQ for this. I know at my FLGS we have ruled that it does work as he is using his skills that he has learned and applying them to the gun of his choosing. Its not like they specialized in Fast Shooting with only 1 type of weapon.

I disagree. I know of non-Eldar players who allow it, and as an Eldar player I don't play it that way. Of course as an Eldar player I have better things to spend my points on then Aspect Warriors. Like Guardians. With Bright Lances. And OP Wave Serpents. OK OK. And a few Dark Reapers. But that's it. I need the points for Warlocks.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
Every Eldar player is going to say that it works and every non eldar player is going to say it doesn't. There needs to be an FAQ for this. I know at my FLGS we have ruled that it does work as he is using his skills that he has learned and applying them to the gun of his choosing. Its not like they specialized in Fast Shooting with only 1 type of weapon.

I disagree. I know of non-Eldar players who allow it, and as an Eldar player I don't play it that way. Of course as an Eldar player I have better things to spend my points on then Aspect Warriors. Like Guardians. With Bright Lances. And OP Wave Serpents. OK OK. And a few Dark Reapers. But that's it. I need the points for Warlocks.

Avatar has Fast Shot as well and makes for a very sturdy HQ and is great for CC as well. Havent lost a challenge with him yet.

 Xerics wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
Every Eldar player is going to say that it works and every non eldar player is going to say it doesn't. There needs to be an FAQ for this. I know at my FLGS we have ruled that it does work as he is using his skills that he has learned and applying them to the gun of his choosing. Its not like they specialized in Fast Shooting with only 1 type of weapon.

I disagree. I know of non-Eldar players who allow it, and as an Eldar player I don't play it that way. Of course as an Eldar player I have better things to spend my points on then Aspect Warriors. Like Guardians. With Bright Lances. And OP Wave Serpents. OK OK. And a few Dark Reapers. But that's it. I need the points for Warlocks.

Avatar has Fast Shot as well and makes for a very sturdy HQ and is great for CC as well. Havent lost a challenge with him yet.

The Avatar doesn't count. He leads the Seer Council (especially at 2000 pts) and also gets Disarming Strike.

 DarthOvious wrote:

I get what you're saying here, I really do but if the gun emplacement rule states that the model fires it INSTEAD of his own weapon, then this seems to indicate that a gun emplacement is not his weapon.

The boy did not drink from the bottle of water, he drank from his juice box instead.

Clear ownership of the juice box does not necessarily mean lack of ownership of the water bottle.

http://dictionary.reference.com/ on 'instead wrote:
1. as a substitute or replacement; in the place or stead of someone or something: We ordered tea but were served coffee instead.

I can substitute something that is mine for something that is not mine; I was going to play my Orks tonight but played my Tau instead.

http://dictionary.reference.com/ on 'instead wrote:
2. in preference; as a preferred or accepted alternative: The city has its pleasures, but she wished instead for the quiet of country life.

I can prefer something I own more then something else I own: My Games Workshop sculpt of Belial is neat, but instead fielding my conversion gives me a sense of pride.

http://dictionary.reference.com/ on 'instead wrote:
3. instead of, in place of; in lieu of: You can use milk instead of cream in this recipe.

Not that different from the 1st definition; I played my Tau tonight instead of my Orks.

 DarthOvious wrote:

So the wording is indicating that the emplacement is not his weapon, but a weapon being used in place of his own weapon. So the weapon doesn't become his weapon because he still has his own weapon, he is just not using his own weapon for the purpose of attack.

The wording makes no such indication. He fire his Icarus Lascannon instead of his Boltgun.

 DarthOvious wrote:

The word "his" can be used to mean a temporary ownership and not a full possesion like you indicate in your examples, but the wording here is indicating that when firing a gun emplacement it is not his weapon and he doesn't even own it temporarily. If you drive your friends car then it is not your car, you are just driving your friends car. It doesn't belong to you in the slightest and doesn't even temporarily belong to you. A teacher might be yours temporarily or a pencil might be yours temporarily as long as they're assigned to you, but it is possible for a person to use an object without it being "his".

So what is it, his can be used to described temporary ownership thought possession or it can not. Clearly we are not talking about a legal transfer of ownership just the use of a possessive pronoun. If John barrows Adam's car, and then hit Julie with that car. If Julie told the police office that John hit her with his car, would she be wrong? If I was lent a pencil and I broke it, I could not say I broke my pencil?

 DarthOvious wrote:

So Fast Shot allows a model to shoot an extra shot with "his" weapon. However a gun emplacement says he can shoot the emplacement INSTEAD of his own weapon. The original weapon does not stop being his and the emplacement does not suddenly become his due to this wording.

Well actually it might. The question is if an emplacement being fired by a model is 'his' weapon while he is firing it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/ on 'his wrote:
1. the possessive form of he (used as an attributive or predicative adjective): His coat is the brown one. This brown coat is his. Do you mind his speaking first?

Possession does not require ownership: His desk, his girlfriend, his bad breath. etc

http://dictionary.reference.com/ on 'his wrote:
2. that or those belonging to him: His was the cleverest remark of all. I borrowed a tie of his.

Ownership does not require possession: John is looking for his keys.

 DarthOvious wrote:

Now lets go back to the car driving example. Lets say that Mike is driving his friends car. It is incorrect for someone to say Mike is driving his car, because the car doesn't belong to him, not even temporarily.

Mike who does not own a car barrows a friends car and decides to put gas in it before he returns it. Upon arriving at the gas station he learns he must pay before he pumps. Mike leaves the car at the pump and goes inside. After asking for 30 dollars worth of gas the attendant asks Mike which is his car, Mike, according to your reasoning, must tell the clerk he does not have a car. Wrong. The possession of his friends car makes it acceptable for Mike to refer to the car as his car just like you refereed to Mike's friend as his friend. Or were you implying Mike's friend is also Mike's property,

The question remains. Does a model firing a gun emplacement posses that gun emplacement while it is being fired? Logic would disctate yes, but this game is not always logical. This needs an FAQ because we are way off in RAI territory and no RAW that's even close help us make an educated guess.

 Zagman wrote:
His can mean use or possession. His is not simply the possessive form of he.

Err, yes it is. One does not have to own something to possess it, I agree, but "association" as a definition is just plain wrong when referring to actual things. The "association" definition may apply to verb phrases, but not noun phrases.

Here is the best example I can think of off hand, "His desk is located in his room which is in his house. When at school his teacher told him to sit patiently at his desk in the classroom."

We have a couple of different uses of "his".

The boy owns/posses a desk in his room, "his desk".
The boy uses/associated with a room in his house, "his room".
The boy is associated with a particular house which the boy's parents own, "his house".
The boy is associated with a particular teacher, he does not own nor does he possess them, "his teacher".
The boy is using/associated with a particular desk in a classroom, which is owned by the school, "his desk".

"his desk" can mean either use or possession as clearly demonstrated above, just as it can mean use or possession in the Fast Shot and Gun Emplacement rules. "His Weapon" can mean either use or possession and therefore as written Fast Shot works. You may argue RAI, but cannot choose a very narrow and selective definition of "his".

Here is one more scholastic example.

All students come to class and are required to pick a up a number 2 pencil and their scan-tron sheet from the front of the room. During the course of the exam Johnny broke his pencil causing him to draw a huge line across his exam.

Johnny broke "his pencil", the one he does not own, but merely possesses for the duration of the exam in lieu of his own. Kind of sounds like using a gun emplacement for a phase instead of your own weapon.

Fast Shot merely specifies "his weapon" which can refer to either the weapon the model has in wargear, or the weapon he is firing. RAW Fast Shot works on a gun emplaement until an FAQ comes out to say otherwise.

"Jimmy can write 50 words per minute more than is normal when writing at his desk."
"Jimmy can write at another desk instead of his own."

Can Jimmy still write 50 words per minute more than usual? It seems to me that when writing at another desk (firing an emplaced gun) a very clear distinction is made between the other desk and his own.

If Games Workshop had wanted Fast Shot to apply to any shooting attack made they should have left out "his weapon" from its rules.

Is there any chance of adding a poll to this thread? I'd like to know how most people are playing it

 DJGietzen wrote:

The boy did not drink from the bottle of water, he drank from his juice box instead.

Clear ownership of the juice box does not necessarily mean lack of ownership of the water bottle.

Except the rule states the gun emplacement doesn't belong to him. I think its also quite obvious that a gun emplacement on a random battlefield doesn't belong to any random army who walks up to use it.

The word INSTEAD is important here. It states he can use the gun emplacement INSTEAD of his own weapon. It doesn't say he can use tyhe gun emplacement AS IF it was his own weapon. This is very different here. The wording indicates that the gun emplacement is different from his own.

I can substitute something that is mine for something that is not mine; I was going to play my Orks tonight but played my Tau instead.

Yes, but if you stated I was going to play with my army today but I used someone elses instead then that would be different. The instead in the rule is indicating an alternative to possession. He can shoot the gun emplacement INSTEAD of one he owns.

I can prefer something I own more then something else I own: My Games Workshop sculpt of Belial is neat, but instead fielding my conversion gives me a sense of pride.

But the wording of the rule states that it is something different from what he owns. i.e. He can use the gun emplacement INSTEAD of his own gun. So therefore the gun emplacement is something different from his own gun. Its a clear opposite.

Not that different from the 1st definition; I played my Tau tonight instead of my Orks.

yes, but in this particular instance both armies belong to you. The wording of the rule indicates that a gun emplacement is a gun OTHER than the one he owns. The emphasis on the word instead is in relation to ownership of the gun. It is not in relationship to two different armies that someone owns. Context is important in this instance.

The wording makes no such indication. He fire his Icarus Lascannon instead of his Boltgun.

Yes it does.

So what is it, his can be used to described temporary ownership thought possession or it can not. Clearly we are not talking about a legal transfer of ownership just the use of a possessive pronoun. If John barrows Adam's car, and then hit Julie with that car. If Julie told the police office that John hit her with his car, would she be wrong? If I was lent a pencil and I broke it, I could not say I broke my pencil?

The point of the argument is that the gun emplacement isn't even noted as a temporary ownership or possesion. Thus he can't use fast shot with it.

Well actually it might. The question is if an emplacement being fired by a model is 'his' weapon while he is firing it.

The gun emplacement rule clearly says it isn't. It says he is firing the gun emplacement INSTEAD of his own weapon. If the gun emplacement was his weapon the wording of the rule would say that he could fire the gun emplacement AS IF it was his own weapon. The word "instead" here is being used to indicate that the gun emplacement is the opposite of his own weapon and that it is not his own weapon.

Possession does not require ownership: His desk, his girlfriend, his bad breath. etc

Well go and tell the dictionary writers that because thats all I was quoting.

Ownership does not require possession: John is looking for his keys.

Same again, tell the dictionary people and not me.

Mike who does not own a car barrows a friends car and decides to put gas in it before he returns it. Upon arriving at the gas station he learns he must pay before he pumps. Mike leaves the car at the pump and goes inside. After asking for 30 dollars worth of gas the attendant asks Mike which is his car, Mike, according to your reasoning, must tell the clerk he does not have a car. Wrong. The possession of his friends car makes it acceptable for Mike to refer to the car as his car just like you refereed to Mike's friend as his friend. Or were you implying Mike's friend is also Mike's property,

The car doesn't belong to him. The English here is rather improper but thats only because the gas attendent doesn't know who owns the car. He is referring to the car as in who filled the car with gas and who is going to pay for the gas for said car. Once again context is important. The context here isn't really referring to the ownership of the car but it is loose English to imply who is going to pay for the gas of the car and this only happens because the gas attendent doesn't know who the car belongs to, so he has to make an assumption who does.

The question remains. Does a model firing a gun emplacement posses that gun emplacement while it is being fired? Logic would disctate yes, but this game is not always logical. This needs an FAQ because we are way off in RAI territory and no RAW that's even close help us make an educated guess.

Actually logic would dictate no and I already shown why. Here is the rule again.

1) A model can fire a gun emplacement INSTEAD of his own weapon
2) The gun emplacement is defined as being different from his own weapon
c1) The gun emplacement cannot be his weapon & not his weapon at the same time as that breaks the rules on non-contradiction.
c1) Therefore the gun emplacement is not his own weapon.

I don't understand how it cannot be followed like this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PredaKhaine wrote:
Is there any chance of adding a poll to this thread? I'd like to know how most people are playing it

To be fair I wouldn't stop my opponent from using it. I think RAW wise he can't shoot the extra shot but I'm not going to argue about an extra shot on a gun emplacement. At the end of the day it doesn't make that big of a difference and I don't argue about the petty things. Especially since you're going to get into bigger disputes along the way.

 DarthOvious wrote:


Actually logic would dictate no and I already shown why. Here is the rule again.

1) A model can fire a gun emplacement INSTEAD of his own weapon
2) The gun emplacement is defined as being different from his own weapon
c1) The gun emplacement cannot be his weapon & not his weapon at the same time as that breaks the rules on non-contradiction.
c1) Therefore the gun emplacement is not his own weapon.

I don't understand how it cannot be followed like this.

1) The word INSTEAD does not mean the gun emplacement is not 'his' while he is firing and also does not mean the gun emplacement is necessarily 'his'. It only means its not the weapon he would normally fire. The definition of 'Instead' has no effect on what is and is not 'his'.
2) You can't define something be not being something else. Just becouse object A is defined as a thing, does not mean object B is not also defined as that thing.
c1) Because of the multiple implications of 'his' it in fact can be both 'his' and 'not his' at the same time. The gun emplacement is not a weapon he owns, but if he is on control of the gun emplacement it can be 'his' weapon because he posses it.
c1) You can't draw a conclusion based upon itself. You've decided the weapon is not his because the weapon is not his.

The question remains, is it the INTENT of the rules for the gun emplacement to be 'his' weapon when he fires it.

 DJGietzen wrote:
1) The word INSTEAD does not mean the gun emplacement is not 'his' while he is firing and also does not mean the gun emplacement is necessarily 'his'. It only means its not the weapon he would normally fire. The definition of 'Instead' has no effect on what is and is not 'his'.

I think it might be worth noting that while it does not rule the gun emplacement out as being "his" in terms of use or possession, it does make a clear distinction between the model's own weapon (which is obviously his) and the gun emplacement which seems dubiously the model's at best.