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.

This may sound a little silly, but am I allowed to run my forgefiend with a pair of Hades AC's and the additional Ectoplamsma Cannon as long as I pay the 25pts for it?

The main reason I am asking is because I was called out on it while running it in this configuration in a game earlier this week by another player who seems to have a valid point seeing as the rules are somewhat ambiguous.

Hers what it says in the unit entry:
" • May replace both Hades AC's for EPC's - free
• May take an ADDITIONAL EPC - 25pts"
Now this other player may have been placing too much emphasis on "additional" when reading it but I can see where he is coming from.

Can I get some opinions/clarification on this guys??
Thanks, Pat

From the wording, you have to get the free EPCs to get the third.

Yet in the codex there is a picture of Forgefeind with hades cannons and a head mounted plasma.

I say as long as your pay the points its fine, the reason its "extrat" is because its not replacing anything.

 Lord Harrab wrote:
Yet in the codex there is a picture of Forgefeind with hades cannons and a head mounted plasma.

I say as long as your pay the points its fine, the reason its "extrat" is because its not replacing anything.

This was my reasoning as the two arm mounted EPC's dont cost anything so it's not like I am gaining a points advantage by not purchasing the first two and only buying the third cannon, if that makes any sense. >.<

Maybe I am gaining a severe advantage, idk feel free to correct me if I am, I just think the bigass gatling gun Hades AC's look much more badass and are loads more versatile than an EPC loaded out fiend which now has the potential to glance itself to death in one round of pisspoor dicerolling, just my opinion. Lollll

Thanks for the speedy response though guys, both of you, it seems that GW's tendency to be contradictory through the RAW and then going and showing you in the pictures RAI strikes again...goddammit

pjcoffey55 wrote:

 Lord Harrab wrote:
Yet in the codex there is a picture of Forgefeind with hades cannons and a head mounted plasma.

I say as long as your pay the points its fine, the reason its "extrat" is because its not replacing anything.

This was my reasoning as the two arm mounted EPC's dont cost anything so it's not like I am gaining a points advantage by not purchasing the first two and only buying the third cannon, if that makes any sense. >.<

Maybe I am gaining a severe advantage, idk feel free to correct me if I am, I just think the bigass gatling gun Hades AC's look much more badass and are loads more versatile than an EPC loaded out fiend which now has the potential to glance itself to death in one round of pisspoor dicerolling, just my opinion. Lollll

Thanks for the speedy response though guys, both of you, it seems that GW's tendency to have contradictory RAW and then go and show you in the pictures RAI strikes again...goddammit

Indeed. Those multi-barreled cannons are awesome looking, and that head-cannon makes termies uneasy to go near it.

I'm planning on taking the same load out, and the rules don't say that i have to take the other cannons to get the face-cannon, so i won't.

How do you take an "additional" cannon if you have none to begin with?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How do you take an "additional" cannon if you have none to begin with?

By taking it "In addition" to the Hades Autocannons perhaps?

Then it is not an additional Cannon, it is a cannon in addition to your hades cannon.

THe phrasing of "additional cannon" is rather important. You cannot have an additional cannon until you have your first cannon, but can have a cannon in addition to a non-cannon. The former is the rule, however given GWs patchy understanding of even basic grammar I wouldnt bet on that being what they intended.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then it is not an additional Cannon, it is a cannon in addition to your hades cannon.

THe phrasing of "additional cannon" is rather important. You cannot have an additional cannon until you have your first cannon, but can have a cannon in addition to a non-cannon. The former is the rule, however given GWs patchy understanding of even basic grammar I wouldnt bet on that being what they intended.

Indeed. I've yet to encounter another games system that has such poorly worded options and rules. This is yet another example of something that could go either way, personally i say; "Yes you can take the cannon without first replacing the auto-cannons", but thats only backed up by an image of such a load out on page 86 of the new codex and not by any rules.

Roll on the FAQ i guess.

RAW , you cannot take an "additional cannon" without first having one or more cannon

RAI? Who knows. (Those models have been wrong before - the codex is often a bad place to trust the pictures!) HWIPI? That the model looks cool in that config, so any opponent who wanted to field it I would have no issues with that.

Autocannon is a cannon... but even then it doesn't matter. I can have two oranges and then buy and additional apple.

Sigh. Quote foreshortened to avoid spelling "ectoplasm" every time. The rule is clear on what type of cannon you already have to have

And in English you cannot. do that; you have an Apple IN ADDITION to having 2 oranges, you cannot buy an additional apple to your 0 existing apples, as "additional" requires the thing you are adding to already be there.

I think it's pretty obvious that you can have an ectoplasma with the hades autocannons as there is a picture of it with this configuration in the codex. Honestly, some of you people read too much into the wording of the rules just to find an advantage to your army and a disadvantage to your opponents army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


A picture taken from GW website.
[/thread]

Also look at the fact that the two options are at equal nesting. The second isn't dependent on the first like with flack cannons for missile launchers.

And? The language used makes it dependent, irrespecitve of the positioning.

Ed - gee, its almost like that point hasnt been covered 2 or 3 times by now. Also, you have read the tenets I trust? Where in a GW Codex, BRB, FAQ or Errata does that picture appear in the rules section?

I can point to illegal units in codexes (Old VC, from memory) as well as illegal options in pictures. DOesnt mean the printed rule is somehow superceded by a picture

ad·di·tion·al
Adjective
Added, extra, or supplementary to what is already present or available.
----------------------------
existing by way of addition
----------------------------
added; more; supplementary
----------------------------
added or supplementary
----------------------------

Various definitions of "additional" do not support nosferatu1001's narrow reading thereof.

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

I'd say in this case additional is used to mean "not exchanging other weapons options for".

"In addition" doesn't just mean "and more of the same". NOS, as you are from the UK, thinking of politicians speeches, "In addition" is usually the start of a non sequitur as is "additionally" so it is not universal that addition is of like terms or units. It is a common use of those phrases in Ireland and in parts of the UK if the commons are to be believed. English is defined by use etc.
For example: I grabbed three pairs of pants in addition to the other clothes that I purchased.

"pants" is a subset of clothes. The same cannot be said for "ectoplasm"

Additional weapon.

Yet you arent being allowed to take an additional "weapon" in general, you are being told to take a specific one. - one which you do not already have

While I agree that RAW you need the first set to take the additional.

RAI and HIWPI is shown in the image that's getting so much love in this thread.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you arent being allowed to take an additional "weapon" in general, you are being told to take a specific one. - one which you do not already have

So we are agreed the 2nd point in the forgefiend allows it to buy another excoplasm cannon indifferent to the other two guns it is sporting?
The 2nd point isn't indented further than the first not is is an empty circle or a hyphen. That from the context of the codex's formatting convention shows that it is not a dependent choice.

Yet the wording makes it dependent.

And no, we do not agree. I was, in fact, pointing out the difference in your analogy to the situation presented. There is no superset you are being told to add to, just the single weapon

Its been faq'd.
you don't need to swap out the autocannons to get the face mounted plasma cannon.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2940043a_Chaos_Space_Marines_v1.1_JANUARY13.pdf

Q: Must a Forgefiend exchange its hades autocannons for
ectoplasma cannons before being allowed to take the ‘additional’
ectoplasma cannon upgrade? (p103)
A: No.

Taken from January FAQ update. Problem solved!

LOL was'nt in contention for me to start with. It still can only fire 2 of them per turn. However it does give options to use a cupcake blast marker to hit for some ap2 goodness.

Lungpickle wrote:
LOL was'nt in contention for me to start with. It still can only fire 2 of them per turn. However it does give options to use a cupcake blast marker to hit for some ap2 goodness.

Why can it only fire 2 per turn? Perhaps I've missed something, but I don't see anything stating that.

Because its a walker.

6th ed made it so walkers can fire all the weapons at once.