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.

So I have a bit of confusion regarding this. In the ranged weapons section of C:MT, the hot-shot volley gun is stated to have Gets Hot! (a confusing shame, given how risky that is with potentially 4 shots). However, in the back cover glossary, the hot-shot volley gun is lacking the Gets Hot! rule. The latter of the two makes more sense to me, as the other hot-shot weaponry doesn't get hot. However, I can see it argued the other way from a fluff standpoint, what with spitting out that many shots. However, this isn't a fluff question.

So, in conclusion (or tldr); Hot-shot volley guns; gets hot, or no?

Not mentioned anywhere in the AM Codex. I'd say "no".

helotaxi wrote:
Not mentioned anywhere in the AM Codex. I'd say "no".

Alright, thanks! I don't have the AM codex available to me, so I couldn't check it.

A difference between the AM and the MT codex means nothing at all.

After all In MT each scions unit is troops and each tempestus command is HQ.

In Codex:AM; Both are parts of an Elite choice.

The problem really arises from the volley gun having different rules within the MT book.

without FAQ to tell us otherwise we generally assume the back of the book profiles and quick reference rules are less official than any profile or rule fully described earlier.

So more RAW than RAI (assuming non-overheating volley guns were intended, based on AM). It's not a huge concern to me right now, as I don't intend on taking them anyway, but more a curiosity with a profile contradiction. I would probably lean towards RAI myself, as I feel that with references elsewhere being more in tune with a non-overheating volley gun, and that the weapon's power/points doesn't justify it killing the user more often than a plasma gun, seem more reasonable. Then again, I'm not in a meta where it's cut-throat with the rulings.

GW has done this before, in the eldar codex it has the shadow weaver with different rules much like the MT codex. A real pain pain the other night.

Its pretty safe to assume that it does not have gets hot. Dont worry too much about it.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
.

without FAQ to tell us otherwise we generally assume the back of the book profiles and quick reference rules are less official than any profile or rule fully described earlier.

well in that case, until FAQ'd otherwise Rough Riders have Armor Values, Initiative of 1, 7 attacks and 5+ hull points.

helotaxi wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
.

without FAQ to tell us otherwise we generally assume the back of the book profiles and quick reference rules are less official than any profile or rule fully described earlier.

well in that case, until FAQ'd otherwise Rough Riders have Armor Values, Initiative of 1, 7 attacks and 5+ hull points.

I'm not reading that in the codex?

Seriously there's literally nothing that reads that. I read all three entries where is this coming from?

The Volley Gun has the gets hot rule in the armoury section of Militarum Tempestus. It does not have the rule in the summary of that book, either the armoury or summary of the AM book, or the White Dwarf that had the rules. That makes a compelling case that the Gets Hot rule is simply a mistake, as it is only in one quarter of printed rules for the gun.

 Trickstick wrote:
The Volley Gun has the gets hot rule in the armoury section of Militarum Tempestus. It does not have the rule in the summary of that book, either the armoury or summary of the AM book, or the White Dwarf that had the rules. That makes a compelling case that the Gets Hot rule is simply a mistake, as it is only in one quarter of printed rules for the gun.

Does that mean that Chimeras Do not have the lasgun Arrays, and it is just a misprint in the AM codex?

After all it only has the Arrays in 1/3 of the printed rules.

I'd say no, as the little bit of fluff describing the volley-gun even says that they have special cooling systems that cause it to stay safe.
And 2/3 stats of them say they don't have it.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Does that mean that Chimeras Do not have the lasgun Arrays, and it is just a misprint in the AM codex?

After all it only has the Arrays in 1/3 of the printed rules.

There is only one printed version of the Astra Militarum Chimera.

The TM version probably does Get Hot, based on C:Eldar.

In the wargear section, both the Hot-shot Volley Gun have one profile, and the Profile summary has a different one. Prior to the site revamp, the FAQ for C:Eldar said to change the profile summary to be the same as the wargear version.

Remember that your codex rules override other printed rules when playing. I think that is articulated in the main rule book, so an AM army using hot-shot volley guns would not be subject to gets hot. What others have I cannot say because I only have the AM book.

I think this is the case because you can never pick and choose other similar rules from other books and apply them to your own. So no blood angel tacs with grav guns or 10pts plasma guns from the Inquisition book applying to other armies seems not to be issue.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

helotaxi wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
.

without FAQ to tell us otherwise we generally assume the back of the book profiles and quick reference rules are less official than any profile or rule fully described earlier.

well in that case, until FAQ'd otherwise Rough Riders have Armor Values, Initiative of 1, 7 attacks and 5+ hull points.

I'm not reading that in the codex?

Seriously there's literally nothing that reads that. I read all three entries where is this coming from?

It's an editing error in the iBooks version in the main entry. The summary in the reference section has the correct headings.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
The Volley Gun has the gets hot rule in the armoury section of Militarum Tempestus. It does not have the rule in the summary of that book, either the armoury or summary of the AM book, or the White Dwarf that had the rules. That makes a compelling case that the Gets Hot rule is simply a mistake, as it is only in one quarter of printed rules for the gun.

Does that mean that Chimeras Do not have the lasgun Arrays, and it is just a misprint in the AM codex?

After all it only has the Arrays in 1/3 of the printed rules.

What rules would these be? The ones made obsolete by the release of Codex: Astra Militarum?

 Trickstick wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Does that mean that Chimeras Do not have the lasgun Arrays, and it is just a misprint in the AM codex?

After all it only has the Arrays in 1/3 of the printed rules.

There is only one printed version of the Astra Militarum Chimera.

And there are only 2 printed versions of the Militarum Tempestus Hot shot Volley gun, but you are claiming that only 1/4of the rules have gets hot because you are claiming Astra Militarum counts.

If Astra Militarum counts for Hot shot Volley guns, Then Inquisition and Grey knights count for Chimeras.

Each book/dataslate/rules source uses it's own rules; The MT has a conflict between the long-form rules in the Armoury, and the quick reference in the back. Traditionally it has been the quick reference that has been wrong(I am not discounting the possibility that the long form is the wrong one) and/or incomplete.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If Astra Militarum counts for Hot shot Volley guns, Then Inquisition and Grey knights count for Chimeras.

Touché Kommissar.

So, the only logical course of action is to dice it off every game. If we start to get in to RAI though, I think that they are not supposed to get hot.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Traditionally it has been the quick reference that has been wrong(I am not discounting the possibility that the long form is the wrong one) and/or incomplete.

So when in doubt, we should assume the quick-reference section is wrong? Is that what they do for tournaments?

Oh I totally Agree and Will not be surprised to see it FAQ'd to remove it.

I also would freely agree with my opponent that it is not supposed to have gets hot; but We never know if they are just going to have MT volley guns get hot while AM ones don't.

RAW... well, there is no established rule for what happens when two or more different instances of the same item in a single book have different effects/stats so you can't really say anything conclusive about it. It's obviously a typo so just play it without Gets Hot!.

This a case of best possible evidence. There is a conflict between the text and reference sections of the MT codex, and one of them is clearly a misprint. As Kel said earlier when there is a conflict like this and the only evidence are those two entries we generally consider the text, and not the reference to be the best possible evidence of what is correct. In this case however there is more evidence. The same weapon for the same unit was published less than a month apart in two different codices. In the second codex neither the text nor the reference section mention 'get's hot'. There is also the matter of the MT codex's fluff description of the weapon's cooling system. All of this taken together tells us the best possible evidence is that the entry in the text section of the MT codex was a misprint. No this is not a definitive answer and will require an errata to be 100%, but at this point its easily 80% likely the text section of the MT codex is the misprint. .

Virtus wrote:
So when in doubt, we should assume the quick-reference section is wrong? Is that what they do for tournaments?

Pretty much, yes. GW have actually sais as much in the past... summaries are notorious for getting stuff wrong. It's been pretty universal throughout the last 20 years that when the summary differs from the main entry, it's the summary that turns out to be wrong.

I vaguely recall there having been one case where it was the other way around, back in 4th edition... but can't remember off the top of my head what it was.