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.

If a model has several weapons and an ability to fire more than one weapon in the shooting phase, could he fire the Quad-gun and another weapon? Quad-gun rules "instead of firing a weapon.." refers to a single weapon.

So could a Tau suit with multi-tracker and target lock fire the Quad-gun at one target and another gun at another target?

Things that can fire two weapons state they can fire two of their own weapons, not one of their own and one quad gun

 DeathReaper wrote:
Things that can fire two weapons state they can fire two of their own weapons, not one of their own and one quad gun

Not exactly.

Multi-tracker rule reads: "...enables the model to fire two weapons in the same turn"


And when Quad-gun rule says instead of firing a weapon, I would say that you could fire Quad-gun and then another weapon.

But the Quad gun says instead of firing a weapon, you can do this. it gives no allowance to fire a second weapon.

 DeathReaper wrote:
But the Quad gun says instead of firing a weapon, you can do this. it gives no allowance to fire a second weapon.

"a weapon" means a single weapon. You give up the right to fire one single weapon. If you can fire two weapons, you still have the right to fire the other weapon.

Polecat wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
But the Quad gun says instead of firing a weapon, you can do this. it gives no allowance to fire a second weapon.

"a weapon" means a single weapon. You give up the right to fire one single weapon. If you can fire two weapons, you still have the right to fire the other weapon.

That is not in the Quad Gun rules. it only allows you to fire it instead of your weapon.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Polecat wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
But the Quad gun says instead of firing a weapon, you can do this. it gives no allowance to fire a second weapon.

"a weapon" means a single weapon. You give up the right to fire one single weapon. If you can fire two weapons, you still have the right to fire the other weapon.

That is not in the Quad Gun rules. it only allows you to fire it instead of your weapon.

Yes, instead of a weapon.

And if I have 2 weapons and are allowed to fire 2 weapons, then I can fire Quad-gun instead of some weapon and then fire another weapon.

Yes you can, I've been over the entire rulebook and related codex.

Nothing states you have to fire one or the other, nor does it state than when you can fire more than one weapon during the shooting phase they have to be part of your wargear.

For all purposes with a model in base contact, A Gun Emplacement counts as a weapon of the model.

Seriously, it's not a ground breaking rule or an obvious RAW exploit.
It's a cool little extra that may or may not of been full intended, that allows awesome scenarios (or would of is Tyranids could still use gun emplacements)

Polecat wrote:
Yes, instead of a weapon.

That is NOT what the rule says. If it was there would be no issue.
This is being mis-quoted a lot which is causing confusion.

"Fire it instead of its own weapon" is the actual rule.

Not "a weapon", not "one weapon" and not "all weapons".

The rule does not allow you to fire the quad gun, then fire a second weapon. Likewise it does not say you sacrifice all shooting to fire the quad gun. Sadly the way the rule is written, it is only clear when dealing with a model with a single weapon ("own weapon" singular).

It's not a well written rule as it gives us no hint on how to deal with models that can fire more than one weapon. Neither sides of the argument are RAW, the only RAW answer is "don't know".

Now, with that being said, could a model that has the capability fire 2 weapons fire 2 emplaced weapons as neither of them are "Its Own Weapon"?

 grendel083 wrote:

Polecat wrote:
Yes, instead of a weapon.

That is NOT what the rule says. If it was there would be no issue.
This is being mis-quoted a lot which is causing confusion.

"Fire it instead of its own weapon" is the actual rule.

Not "a weapon", not "one weapon" and not "all weapons".

The rule does not allow you to fire the quad gun, then fire a second weapon. Likewise it does not say you sacrifice all shooting to fire the quad gun. Sadly the way the rule is written, it is only clear when dealing with a model with a single weapon ("own weapon" singular).

It's not a well written rule as it gives us no hint on how to deal with models that can fire more than one weapon. Neither sides of the argument are RAW, the only RAW answer is "don't know".

Point taken.

 grendel083 wrote:

Polecat wrote:
Yes, instead of a weapon.

That is NOT what the rule says. If it was there would be no issue.
This is being mis-quoted a lot which is causing confusion.

"Fire it instead of its own weapon" is the actual rule.

Not "a weapon", not "one weapon" and not "all weapons".

The rule does not allow you to fire the quad gun, then fire a second weapon. Likewise it does not say you sacrifice all shooting to fire the quad gun. Sadly the way the rule is written, it is only clear when dealing with a model with a single weapon ("own weapon" singular).

It's not a well written rule as it gives us no hint on how to deal with models that can fire more than one weapon. Neither sides of the argument are RAW, the only RAW answer is "don't know".

Not really, because MC's and walkers are only allowed to fire more than 1 of their own weapons. The quad gun does not say you fire it counting as firing one of your own weapons. You fire it in lieu of one of your own weapons. Walker and MC rules do not say you can fire anything that isn't "their weapon" as well as their weapons. If you fire a weapon that isn't your own then you have no permission to fire anything more, as a blanket rule is models can fire one weapon. MC's and walkers can fire more than 1 of their own, which they are not doing. But this has been hashed and rehashed in several threads now.

Sorry Kevin, none of the weapons belonging to walkers, monstrous creatures, et all (or any other weapon in all of 40k for that matter that i'm aware of) explicitly states you can fire them in addition to any other weapon. This includes but is not limited to weapons which manifestively 'can' be fired in addition to other weapons because rules pertinent to the 'model' carrying them allow them to be.

Grendel038 has the right of it; as it is written the rule is unclear and does not specify wether the emplaced weapon may be fired instead of one weapon, or instead of all weapons belonging to the model in b2b.

 Neorealist wrote:
Sorry Kevin, none of the weapons belonging to walkers, monstrous creatures, et all (or any other weapon in all of 40k for that matter that i'm aware of) explicitly states you can fire them in addition to any other weapon. This includes but is not limited to weapons which manifestively 'can' be fired in addition to other weapons because rules pertinent to the 'model' carrying them allow them to be.

Grendel038 has the right of it; as it is written the rule is unclear and does not specify wether the emplaced weapon may be fired instead of one weapon, or instead of all weapons belonging to the model in b2b.

That's what I said. I've *always* said that a walker or MC can either fire the gun emplacement *or* their weapons, not both. I'm on your side on this and have been arguing this point through multiple threads. Sorry if my last post wasn't clear on that.

I was under the impression grendel was saying they could fire it and one (or more) of their weapons...did I misread his post? And yes, the rules for it aren't very clear as they obviously only had "infantry" models in mind for using gun emplacements.

In truth, i'm on the side of people who've been saying that the model should be able to replace the firing of one (note, not 'all') of it's own weapons to fire the quadgun instead. Sadly I'm also of the opinion based on my readings on the topic that the RAW for emplaced weapons isn't clear enough to either grant or deny that option and that it needs to be FAQed.

 Neorealist wrote:
Sorry Kevin, none of the weapons belonging to walkers, monstrous creatures, et all (or any other weapon in all of 40k for that matter that i'm aware of) explicitly states you can fire them in addition to any other weapon. This includes but is not limited to weapons which manifestively 'can' be fired in addition to other weapons because rules pertinent to the 'model' carrying them allow them to be.

Grendel038 has the right of it; as it is written the rule is unclear and does not specify wether the emplaced weapon may be fired instead of one weapon, or instead of all weapons belonging to the model in b2b.

Nids have Thorax Swarms that can be fired in addition to any other weapons the Nid fires. However this is moot for two reasons. 1 it is a template weapon, and 2 nids cannot fire weapon emplacements.

I vote for allowing it. The keywords here are "..instead of a weapon..". That's pretty clear to me.

 MarshallDin wrote:
I vote for allowing it. The keywords here are "..instead of a weapon..". That's pretty clear to me.

Except the rule says "instead of firing their weapon." Not a weapon.

Happyjew wrote:Nids have Thorax Swarms that can be fired in addition to any other weapons the Nid fires. However this is moot for two reasons. 1 it is a template weapon, and 2 nids cannot fire weapon emplacements.

Ok, so there is at least one weapon then, that is good to know.

However it doesn't address my concern with your point: following the logic you've provided for the quad-gun would prevent any model (not armed with a thorax swarm) from firing more than one weapon as the vast majority of weapons do not in themselves explicitly allow the model to fire them in addition to another weapon; let alone contain the rules-text allowing one to fire them instead of another weapon on a different model.

Hrm..the multitracker entry as per the errata in the Tau FAQ stated that "It enables the model to fire two weapons in the same turn." Thus, the usage of multitracker is not restricted to Tau Battlesuit Weapon Systems only.

Then on pg 96 of BRB under "Manual Fire" it is written "All relevant special rules from the firing model and the weapon are used." Now, this means that, among other things, the said Broadside model with multitracker in base contact with the gun emplacement still retains his ability to fire two weapons in the same turn.

Couple that with the entry on pg 105 "One model in base contact can with the gun emplacement can fire it instead of his own weapon following the normal rules for shooting."

I believe I've read it slow enough, but I'm pretty sure that the word "..weapon.." refers to a singular item/gun/pistol..etc which is normally used in the shooting phase.

Since a Broadside with multitracker has two ranged weapons which he can use & fire in the same turn, if he's in base contact with the gun emplacement (lets say its the quad-guns), then he can opt to fire the gun instead of his own weapon (most likely the SMS). After that, he can still fire his 2nd weapon (the t/l Railguns) because the ability to fire two weapons in the same turn is not being switched-off just because he's manning & firing the quad-guns as per the Manual Fire rule.

Personally, if my Tau opponent use this tactic, I'd allow it. If its an ADL + Broadside suits, I'll just dump the biggest & tallest building/ruin/terrain features right smack in their face to neutralize the threat. If its a Bastion, then it'll a bit trickier since it's taller, but that's why we have the cathedrals & towers & other 3-4 storey ruins to minimize their LOS.

Yeah, the Tau Multi-tracker actually got FAQed so that it specifically said "two weapons" instead of "two battlesuit weapons," so it seems like you're definitely in the clear on that one.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Now, with that being said, could a model that has the capability fire 2 weapons fire 2 emplaced weapons as neither of them are "Its Own Weapon"?

Still love to get an answer on this one.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Now, with that being said, could a model that has the capability fire 2 weapons fire 2 emplaced weapons as neither of them are "Its Own Weapon"?

Still love to get an answer on this one.

The answer is no because you couldn't get a model in base to base with both. Or at least, I'm pretty sure there is no model with a 3" base that is allowed to fire more than 2 weapons (similar to the multi-tracker, not MC/Walker/Vehicle).

Though I suppose if you actually had a model with that kind of rule and a base that reached both, then sure. But I'm not sure if any exist.

No reason you cannot line up 2 seperate ADL's next to each other is there?

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
No reason you cannot line up 2 seperate ADL's next to each other is there?

Fortifications can't be within 3" of another fortification.

Though for ADL I honestly don't know if it just means the gun or if you can't put a second gun anywhere near the first ADL and Gun of the first. Personally I would imagine you couldn't put the second one within 3" of the gun or ADL from the first one, and vice versa.

Oh, and if you want a rule for it, Pg 120 very top.

It was just curiosity. I'm not into the whole fortification thing. I think it was a business ploy by GW b/c they were tired of not making money on terrain.

 Neorealist wrote:
Sorry Kevin, none of the weapons belonging to walkers, monstrous creatures, et all (or any other weapon in all of 40k for that matter that i'm aware of) explicitly states you can fire them in addition to any other weapon. This includes but is not limited to weapons which manifestively 'can' be fired in addition to other weapons because rules pertinent to the 'model' carrying them allow them to be.

Grendel038 has the right of it; as it is written the rule is unclear and does not specify wether the emplaced weapon may be fired instead of one weapon, or instead of all weapons belonging to the model in b2b.

A terminator can fire its storm bolter (and only its storm bolter) in addition to the cyclone missile launcher, thats one that explicitly state you can fire one weapon in addition to another.