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.

Was watching a video battle report last night and someone moved their rhino up to their Quadgun in their ADL and was firing it. I read the rule book and RAW say any model; however, is this correct? Could even something like a dreadnaught or land raider arguably move up and fire the quadgun?

It was for a while, but the most recent (I think) FAQ changed that.

There's a recent errata that amends it to specify Non-Vehicle models only.

First thought as "common sense" is no, a Rhino cannot... that is just... silly.
A "reasonable" question was made about what if a Dreadnaught was used.
See thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/502852.page
Rule book update 1.4 states that "one non-vehicle model in base contact" (page 105).
So thank goodness a Rhino cannot be used to operate the quad-gun.

 Talizvar wrote:
First thought as "common sense" is no, a Rhino cannot... that is just... silly.

Why? Cant the vehicle use its remote interface to fire the weapon?

(Pre FaQ nothing restricted it so vehicles could fire a Gun Emplacement).

Plus "common sense" and the 40K rules have little to do with one another.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

@DeathReaper:
You focused on the first statement, my "initial thoughts".
I am entitled to them and I followed up with a more logical argument with the remaining body of the post (which was ignored).

"Common sense" was in quotes and was the hint that yes, it is expecting too much to use that thought process exclusively, especially with a GW product.

Nothing restricted it because it was a rule oversight like normal, the FAQ was to fix what they did not intend to happen which was: vehicles operating emplacements when they would have been better off having them attached to them in the first place.

In summary: I thought I was preachy, you win. Well aware of what you are saying, can manage to wrap my brain around pretty much any rules that may have no bearing on reality.

The trick is that it is a nice easy way to make a game system to count on a few common elements of reality (or consistent fluff/storyline) to decrease the learning curve. By updating in the FAQ it appears the authors agree to a certain extent as well.