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.

A local gaming buddy is adamant that a Quad Gun or Icarus counts as artillery when a model is base to base with it. Hence, making the model T7.

Last game, he pilled in an entire IG unit around it, and claimed they are all T7 because they are manning artillery.

This doesn't seem legit to me, but is there a rule I can reference to put an end to it?

No. There's nothing you can reference because he's making things up. Make him point to the rule that makes them count as artillery. He won't be able to, because it doesn't exist.

Yup, gun emplacements are never defined as artillery, so they aren't.

Gun encampment rule can be found on page 105, in the battle field debris section. There is nothing within these rules stating that you use artillery rules to deal with them, therefore you do not use artillery. Within this section are additional bonuses that are not given to you for artillery, not just the cover save but also immunity from being targeted by certain kinds of attacks. With two completely different set of rules, it is obvious that these are far from artillery, and just because both required additional models to fire isn't enough to combine the rules.

In fact, they are not even enemy models to begin with.

Gun encampments, even ones purchased as part of fortifications, do not belong to either side fighting the battle. The rules highlight that they are capable of being used equally by both you and your opponent regardless of how they got on the table. This can lead to situations where you might be firing the same gun, swinging it back and forth between turns, if both sides are within base contact with it. Given that they are not part of the unit firing them at the time, let alone part of the unit standing next to them during any other phase, it would be a stretch to say any unit standing beside them receives a boost to toughness during your shooting phase.

His response is "the rules don't say they are not artillery". And since they have the same profile, they were intended to be treated as such.

Relic07 wrote:
His response is "the rules don't say they are not artillery". .

The rules also don't say that it isn't a walnut.

Not really much of an argument, there. The rules define what is. If the rules don't say it is artillery, then it isn't artillery. A Space Marine and a Necron Warrior have the same Toughness. That doesn't make them the same thing.

The rules don't say what isn't artillery? If I put a Guardian next to a Quad Gun, he's infantry - says so right in the unit entry in the codex. If I put a crewman from a Vaul's Wrath Support Battery next to a Quad Gun, he's artillery - says so right in the unit entry in the codex.

I guess I don't care very much if someone absolutely insists on treating the Quad Gun as an immobile artillery. It's not an IC and doesn't join units just by being close to them, can be targeted independently, and is only one model with T7 in its profile anyway.

The rules don't say I can't simply pick up all your models at the end of turn one and claim victory because you have nothing on the table....

Remind him of something they like to point out a lot around here: This is a game based around rules permitting actions, not rules denying them. If an action is not directly permitted by some rule, then you have to accept that it is automatically denied. Just because one situation is similar is not enough justification in and of itself for you to be able to pick and chose which rules you want to follow. You would still need a rule stating you have permission to treat the two situations the same.

It is because the rules do not give permission for you to treat it like artillery that you do not have permission to treat it like artillery.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Good point there Mr. pants.

For theoretical argument lets say the quad gun did have a unit type, which is what gives you permission to treat a model in a certain way. This unit type is going to be Artillery, of course, turning it into a full model that you could join up with and handle in the same way as an Artillery piece. So where in that argument are you getting permission to join this unit?

The only models on that would have permission to join this artillery piece are independent characters. These independent character would also have to chose between the gun and any other unit within 2 inches of them. They wouldn't some how be able to bridge the gap between the gun and any adjacent unit, somehow granting a blob of Guardsmen toughness 7. The best one could hope for in this hypothetical situation is that one independent character recieving this boost to toughness.

There is also a big down side: Page 46 states that any unmanned guns are removed from play. No, unmanned isn't correct as it actually states if there is no crew models then the gun is removed from play. Crew models are defined as the models which start as part of the artillery pieces unit prior to deployment. This means you couldn't even start with an independent character joined to them in order to save the gun from being removed. In fact, the rules even highlight that any independent characters whom join an artillery team are not crew of said gun and can not fire the weapon in question and do not prevent the weapon from being removed as a casualty as they are not crew. Therefore the argument of treating them like unit type: artillery actually makes it impossible to fire the weapon and means it would have to be removed from play the very moment it is deployed.

So is your opponent immediately removing these guns from play for not having a proper crew to begin with?

or you could just blow up the Quad and laugh in his face?

Tank shock the the unit and just run the quad gun over.

"Crunch!"

 6^ wrote:
Tank shock the the unit and just run the quad gun over.

"Crunch!"

Gun emplacements are treated as terrain and therefore cannot be tank shocked. In fact if they are deemed to be difficult or dangerous terrain by the players they are more likely to knacker the shocking tank.

@Flinty
Terrain with a Toughness and wounds value? What page does it say they are terrain?

Its my understanding that they are a model that cant get out of the way and are removed as casualties.

 6^ wrote:
@Flinty
Terrain with a Toughness and wounds value? What page does it say they are terrain?

Are you seriously asking for a page number that says that a terrain type detailed in the terrain section is terrain?

Gun emplacements are a type of battlefield debris. Battlefield debris is terrain.

Like buildings, however, gun emplacements have rules allowing models to attack them. Those rules don't include allowance to tank shock them.

 insaniak wrote:

 6^ wrote:
@Flinty
Terrain with a Toughness and wounds value? What page does it say they are terrain?

Are you seriously asking for a page number that says that a terrain type detailed in the terrain section is terrain?

Gun emplacements are a type of battlefield debris. Battlefield debris is terrain.

Like buildings, however, gun emplacements have rules allowing models to attack them. Those rules don't include allowance to tank shock them.

Thanks, sort of, you didn't need to be patronizing.

It wasn't intended to be patronising, just a little incredulous, sorry...

Well I do appreciate your candor.

Our local store generally treats quads/icaruses ( icari?) as impassible terrain to avoid a tank stopping and WMS on top of or getting immobilized on top of them. This also avoids the decision of 'well... the tank is parked on top of my quad gun. Can i fire at it and what facing value am i shooting at?'

It should probably be Icaruses, in the same way as it would be lots of Anguses.

Also if the tank is parked on top of the emplacement, how would you get close enough to be able to fire it at the tank?

 Flinty wrote:
It should probably be Icaruses, in the same way as it would be lots of Anguses.

Also if the tank is parked on top of the emplacement, how would you get close enough to be able to fire it at the tank?

Easy, the Hull of the vehicle would be on top of the gun and more than 1 inch from the base of the model that is on the ground.

Well played, sir