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.

Just wanted to see how the banner is played correctly? Is it a complete replacement of the weapons profile or does it gain additional powers.

Is it 1 ability or multiple?

Salvo replaces the weapon's Type (Rapid Fire) but doesn't replace any Special Rules (Twin-Linked, Rending, whatever)

As above. You are told to changhe the type, not the other special rules.

Clearly there is some debate about this.

Bottom line ask your TO or gaming group how they want to play it after reading the arguments on both sides:

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

There may be some debate, but that doesn't mean the rules are unclear.

Seems fairly straight forward to me. It states you treat the bolt gun as a Salvo weapon. Rapid fire and Salvo are not special rules, they are weapon types, so the only thing you are required to do is to switch them out. Nothing else in the profile is changed. I do not see why any special rules attached to the weapon would be lost, at least not without stating as much.

Besides, do you really think they intended the banner to completely nullify every tactic that allows special rules to be applied to the weapons?

Salvo just wouldn't be a fair trade off, let alone a benefit, if you lost access to all special rules as the special rules are normally far better. Given the shocking price of these banners, some cost more then whole units, it is clear they are meant to give massive benefits on the field. Salvo, added to any special rule, is the only way I could see it justifying that massive cost.

rigeld2 wrote:
There may be some debate, but that doesn't mean the rules are unclear.

Exactly my thoughts.

Just because people think that Salvo replaces Rapid Fire type, instead of simply adding the Salvo type, does not make it so. Especially when there is nothing that says the bolters lose the rapid fire type.

JinxDragon wrote:
Seems fairly straight forward to me. It states you treat the bolt gun as a Salvo weapon. Rapid fire and Salvo are not special rules, they are weapon types, so the only thing you are required to do is to switch them out. Nothing else in the profile is changed. I do not see why any special rules attached to the weapon would be lost, at least not without stating as much.

Besides, do you really think they intended the banner to completely nullify every tactic that allows special rules to be applied to the weapons?

Salvo just wouldn't be a fair trade off, let alone a benefit, if you lost access to all special rules as the special rules are normally far better. Given the shocking price of these banners, some cost more then whole units, it is clear they are meant to give massive benefits on the field. Salvo, added to any special rule, is the only way I could see it justifying that massive cost.

Actually the argument is that a Boltgun in range of the Banner is both Rapid Fire and Salvo.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
There may be some debate, but that doesn't mean the rules are unclear.

Exactly my thoughts.

Just because people think that Salvo replaces Rapid Fire type, instead of simply adding the Salvo type, does not make it so. Especially when there is nothing that says the bolters lose the rapid fire type.

Except for the actual rules that say the weapon is treated as Salvo. If you're firing it as Rapid Fire, are you treating it as Salvo? Or are you breaking a rule?

Not that you would ever choose to be Rapid Fire over Salvo on a Bike or a LRC.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not that you would ever choose to be Rapid Fire over Salvo on a Bike or a LRC.

No, but if you are footslogging (and can choose type), you would definitely take Rapid Fire over Salvo.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
There may be some debate, but that doesn't mean the rules are unclear.

Exactly my thoughts.

Just because people think that Salvo replaces Rapid Fire type, instead of simply adding the Salvo type, does not make it so. Especially when there is nothing that says the bolters lose the rapid fire type.

Except for the actual rules that say the weapon is treated as Salvo. If you're firing it as Rapid Fire, are you treating it as Salvo? Or are you breaking a rule?

Does "treat as" equate to "must also use as"?

It can be treated as "salvo" whilst also being "rapid fire". They are not mutually exclusive.

Show us proof that "treats as" is equivalent to "use as" and you might have an argument.

A Hovering flyer is "treated as" a Fast Skimmer.
Are you suggesting it can still Zoom?

How, they are in conflict with each other?!

Nothing in the banners description states you get to chose between the weapons types at a whim. It says you treat the weapon as Salvo, which is very different then being offered a choice between them. If you do not use the weapon as a salvo weapon, then you have not followed the banner rule as it is written because it isn't following the rules set forth for Salvo weapons.

Likewise, nothing in the base rules for type allows you to select between two different weapon types. I actually have doubt that a weapon can even have duel types, as per the writing in the main rule book. The very first sentence states that a weapon always has one weapon type. While I am sure a codex could change this easily, as per the order of rules, it does support the argument that this is a replacement for the weapon type. As there is no additional rules being provided to inform us how we deal with duel weapon types, something not set out in the main rule book at all, we clearly have a problem with the weapon having duel types.

Can someone provide me with an example of a weapon that has two weapon types, one that doesn't have a special rule that tells you how to deal with this fact?

JinxDragon wrote:
Can someone provide me with an example of a weapon that has two weapon types, one that doesn't have a special rule that tells you how to deal with this fact?

There aren't any. Every weapon with multiple types has it's own rule allowing the choice of type. Psycannon being a good example.

There is that too, every time a weapon has a different type it is written out as a separate profile.

I find it a little hard to take the words 'treat as' to mean add an additional profile onto the weapon. Not only would it be too vague a term, as evident by the fact the majority do not come to that conclusion, but it is one they have used in other parts of the rule book. In those other parts it's use is very clear, you are to ignore all related rules for this 'type' and instead replace them with the related rules for this other 'type.' This makes it near impossible for me to accept an argument that treat as means anything other then replace this section of the rules with these rules.

If they wanted the boltgun to have an additional profile, so you could chose between them, then they would of stated out that profile and said to add it to the existing one.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not that you would ever choose to be Rapid Fire over Salvo on a Bike or a LRC.

No, but if you are footslogging (and can choose type), you would definitely take Rapid Fire over Salvo.

Maybe I am just confused how Salvo works, but it seems like for even footsloggers the Salvo would be superior.

Salvo is 4 shots at 24" if stationary or 2 shots at 12" if you move.
Rapid Fire is 1 shot at 24" or 2 shots at 12".

If you can choose your profile, you would still be able to fire at a unit greater than 12" if you move.

From everything I have seen, using Noise marines, Salvo is better then Rapid fire. There is only one instance where Salvo is worse the rapid fire, and that is if your target happens to be a few inches outside of maximum range. In such a case you would be able to move and shoot 1 shot with rapid fire, but are very unlikely to get within the half-max range needed to fire a Salvo weapon after moving.

Right, I keep getting the salvo profiles mixed up.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Does "treat as" equate to "must also use as"?

Yes. Because you have no option to use it as anything else.

 grendel083 wrote:
A Hovering flyer is "treated as" a Fast Skimmer.
Are you suggesting it can still Zoom?

I didn't see this brought up in that other merry-go-round thread but it seems pretty convincing to me. I seem to remember some discussion a long time ago about that exact thing. I can't remember if it was about movement or disembarking or shooting but I'm pretty sure the conclusion was that "treated as" meant "it's this instead of what it was before".

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Does "treat as" equate to "must also use as"?

Yes. Because you have no option to use it as anything else.

Got a rules quote that actually says that?

Nothing about the term "treated as" removes the pre-existing rules of Rapid Fire.

Treated as Dangerous means it is difficult AND dangerous

If you cast enfeeble on a unit, then that unit treats all terrain as difficult terrain, in that case impassible terrain becomes difficult and you can move right through it...

Or the rules for enfeeble do not take away the Impassible classification, but instead adds to it and you still can not move through impassible terrain.

I am trying to be consistent is all.

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

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

If you cast enfeeble on a unit, then that unit treats all terrain as difficult terrain, in that case impassible terrain becomes difficult and you can move right through it...

Or the rules for enfeeble do not take away the Impassible classification, but instead adds to it and you still can not move through impassible terrain.

As written you can do that. I don't believe that is the intent, however (for Enfeeble to allow movement into Impassable terrain).

I am trying to be consistent is all.

So you allow Hovering Flyers to move 36"? And make any number of turns?

"Treated as" means the same thing as "counts as" which means the same thing as "is", not "is in addition to" or "is sometimes".

If you're rolling on a chart and someone says "if you roll a 1 on a D6, treat it as if you had rolled a 2" you're not gonna go on the chart and say "Well, I can pick and choose then!"

You're gonna take the result on the chart that is for rolling a 2.

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...

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If you cast enfeeble on a unit, then that unit treats all terrain as difficult terrain, in that case impassible terrain becomes difficult and you can move right through it...

Or the rules for enfeeble do not take away the Impassible classification, but instead adds to it and you still can not move through impassible terrain.

As written you can do that. I don't believe that is the intent, however (for Enfeeble to allow movement into Impassable terrain).

That is not true, as nothing takes the impassible terrain tag away from impassible terrain.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:I am trying to be consistent is all.

So you allow Hovering Flyers to move 36"? And make any number of turns?

"Treated as" means the same thing as "counts as" which means the same thing as "is", not "is in addition to" or "is sometimes".

What are you talking about?

Bottom line, it should be discussed with your opponent or the TO before the match so you know how you and your opponents are going to play it.

 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.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If you cast enfeeble on a unit, then that unit treats all terrain as difficult terrain, in that case impassible terrain becomes difficult and you can move right through it...

Or the rules for enfeeble do not take away the Impassible classification, but instead adds to it and you still can not move through impassible terrain.

As written you can do that. I don't believe that is the intent, however (for Enfeeble to allow movement into Impassable terrain).

That is not true, as nothing takes the impassible terrain tag away from impassible terrain.

Well, it does - because the unit treats all terrain as difficult. Because you have no option to treat it as impassable, it's not.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:I am trying to be consistent is all.

So you allow Hovering Flyers to move 36"? And make any number of turns?

"Treated as" means the same thing as "counts as" which means the same thing as "is", not "is in addition to" or "is sometimes".

What are you talking about?

A Hovering Flyer is treated as a Fast Skimmer. Which means that, according to you, it has not lost the ability to Zoom, but it gains the ability to turn as much as it wants (being a Fast Skimmer and all).

Bottom line, it should be discussed with your opponent or the TO before the match so you know how you and your opponents are going to play it.

Sure, just like you should discuss with your opponent about using dice versus asking a random person on the street for a random number.
One method has support from actual rules, one is making things up.

I have one more question about the bikes. Since they are relentless, if they move do you salvo full range or half since you still are considered to have moved?

Full - read the rules for Relentless.

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...

Well, it does - because the unit treats all terrain as difficult. Because you have no option to treat it as impassable, it's not.

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.