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.

Colonel Ellios, I would love to play poker with you, because it seems very obvious that you do not know when you need to fold 'em.

There is no "folding" in a debate.

One side either convinces the other side, or both sides continue to disagree. Thus why a "point system" is used in competitive debate.

Nobody has demonstrated why the Guardian Platform rules should be viewed outside the context of the main rules as they apply to models, shooting, and casualty removal, wherever not specifically exempted.

If we were supposed to interpret the Guardian Platform rule in total isolation, the rule entry would be 5 pages long, or completely unuseable. With a little educated guesswork, the rule becomes pretty clear.

The problem is that, no matter how you slice it, some amount of "guesswork" is involved regarding this rule, and thus the vehement debate.

Dur. I think it is quite obvious that as long as one gunner is in coherency with the platform, then anyone can fire it. Consider it a remote control thingy or something, since its purpose in the game seems purely cosmetic.

I feel stupider for reading 6 pages on what is a pretty clear cut issue.

Thanks for casting your vote.

The point of contention, however, is whether or not the gun can "switch hands" during the game (from turn to turn) leading to the exploit depicted...

Sine, by the main rules, you can't "switch a weapon around in a squad" on the table top, and the grav platform entry tells us that a model is considered "armed" with the weapon, I think it makes perfect sense to conclude that in actuality only one guardian can fire the gun, until he is slain, as depicted by the RAW.

EDIT: The fact that, in normal cases, if a model with a special weapon becomes a casualty, that you lose that special weapon, and that the platform is exempt from that rule as stated in the RAW, should be advantage enough for you. (the gun is essentially "hidden" like a powerfist until both crew somehow become casualties)

Nah, you fold when you are holding all mismatched bad cards, the other side has a pair or better, and the other side knows you're holding all mismatched bad cards. Applies in a debate equally.

Straw Man fallacy. Please desist, and add constructively to the debate.

@Keezus: Whether or not you can fire the platform has no bearing on whether or not it's in coherency or who is next to it. The rules tell us only that "the platform must maintain coherency...(you know the rest at this point)"

It's an easy assumption to make, however it's not supported by the rules.

There is no "switching of hands", or rather there is constant "switching of hands" depending on how you look at it.

"...assume that the gun is actually carried by the crew member that is firing it."

By the exact wording of this clause, the gun is only being carried by any model at the moment that it is being fired. Before and after that moment, the gun is not being carried by anyone, as no crew member is firing it.

Which model is carrying the gun during the movement phase? Neither, as neither is firing it.
Which model is carrying the gun during the assault phase? Neither, as neither is firing it.

Therefore, the gun is not being transferred from one model to the other during the shooting phase, rather one chooses to fire and the weapon goes from a state of non existance (other than for coherency) to one of being carried by the model selected at that instant to fire it. The in moment directly after that shooting instance is complete, the gun reverts to a state of non existance.

I feel that Blue Loki's response expanded my mind and brought me into a higher state of enlightenment. With that said, I also must say that i agree with all of his statements; it's more just admiration for how he said it.

Colonel - my point was that you have no logical points on your side; the other side has them; and knows that your arguments are bunk. Therefore, you would be wise, and will retain some respect, to gracefully concede the point and move to the next "hand" or discussion. I was saying it to you in a polite way, though I will admit somewhat pointedly.

I've figured out what Ells problem is. He thinks that this is a debate a la debate team, where both sides take their positions and the one who argues best wins.

Debate in YMDC isn't about that. The quality of your argument (in debate-team terms) is largely immaterial.

What it should be about is deductively reasoning what particularly thorny rules say, so that we as players aren't taking unfair (defined as being against the rules) advantage of our opponents.

I am not playing "devils advocate" nor am I arguing a viewpoint for the sake of "winning." I am not convinced that anyone here has presented an interpretation of these rules that is anywhere near the wrote of the rules, thus I remain unconvinced, and continue to reinforce my thoughts for you all to understand and criticize until someone quotes from a written source and presents logically, without making blatant assumptions, why my conclusions are wrong.

To demonstrate my reading of the RAW:

The first paragraph is largely un-applicable, as far as I can tell, regarding the "conga line" exploit. Thus I won't quote from it.

RAW (as posted in this thread): "One crewman may fire the platform instead of his shuriken catapult, the other may shoot his own weapon freely."

Conclusion: One crewman may fire the platform. The "may fire instead of his catapult" part tells us that this single crewman can fire either weapon. The other crewman can fire his weapon freely, meaning that he is not "tied" to the operation of the platform, reinforcing the conclusion that only one crewman fires the platform, until exempted by casualties as described later. Thus we choose one crewman of the two to "fire" the platform, since only one crewman can fire it.

"Line of sight and range are established from the firing crew member."

Conclusion: Measure and check LOS from the crewman firing the weapon, as opposed to the other crewman. This would prevent any claims that "I can draw LOS from the guardian that isn't actually firing the weapon." This lends further credence to the idea that you can only have one crewman fire the weapon (nothing indicates that this crewman can change), and only one crewman carrying the weapon at any time (since LOS and range must be measured from ONE model, despite there being two crewmen).

"If one crewman is killed the platform is operated as normal by the other crewman."

Conclusion: This is the rule that allows us to let the weapon "change hands." This lets us know that if one of the crew is killed, the weapon can still be used and is then allowed to be operated by the remaining crewman, whether or not the casualty was the "firer." This also exempts us from "sniping" as per Mind War, but only once.

"...It [the platform model] is essentially a marker..."

Conclusion: The position or anything else about the platform model is unimportant

"...assume that the gun is actually carried by the crew member that is firing it..."

Conclusion: This is the core of my interpretation. Since "one crewman may fire the platform," then that crewman is "assumed to be carrying" the weapon. Ergo, once a crewman "fires" the platform, he is "assumed to be carrying" the weapon [on the platform] and THUS must be treated like any other model carrying a special weapon as dictated in the main rules (i.e. can be "passed over" as a casualty as per the normal rules, determines the location of the weapon throughout the game, since we are not allowed by the main rules to "switch weapons" between models).

So essentially we are told by the rules to "envision" one of the platform crew as actually holding a the weapon on the platform. By the normal rules, when a model is armed with a special (or unique) weapon, that weapon's location, range, and line of sight are dictated by that model, and that model is the only model that can carry that weapon, since it's the only model "upgraded" with it. Ergo, just like you can't claim LOS from a marine sergeant for the Lascannon gunner in the squad, neither can you claim LOS from the crew that isn't "firing" the weapon, nor can that crew "use" that weapon, because they are not "carrying" (or armed) with it. Since models are the basic "unit" of the 40k rules (one of the first important sections in the BBB) we must assume that it is very, very important which "model" is "carrying" said weapon. Once again I state that nothing explicitly allows us to "switch" which model "carries" a weapon during the playing of an actual game unless specifically stated (by the "if one crew dies" rule).

Now please, have a field day tearing this apart and refuting it by quoting from the RAW as I did, and providing a more logical or correct interpretation if you can.

Posted By blue loki on 04/19/2007 1:24 PM
There is no "switching of hands", or rather there is constant "switching of hands" depending on how you look at it.

"...assume that the gun is actually carried by the crew member that is firing it."

By the exact wording of this clause, the gun is only being carried by any model at the moment that it is being fired. Before and after that moment, the gun is not being carried by anyone, as no crew member is firing it.

You're applying a temporal scale to a turn-based game. The rules indicate that certain events happen "simultaneously" despite being separated by turns or phases. A model could be considered to be firing a weapon for the entire turn, or for only a single phase, because this is an abstract game. A model could also "fire" several times in a game, leading to the plural usage of the word as written. The main rules are also very clear that a model with a weapon retains that weapon throughout the game. So if the gun is "assumed to be carried" by the crew (model) firing it, you can't assume that the weapon is no longer carried at any time because you can't ascertain when "firing" stops. If a model is carrying specific gear, it has that gear permanently. We all know this. So by the RAW we must assume that once a crew model uses the weapon, he is considered to be "firing it" and thus "carrying it."

Which model is carrying the gun during the movement phase? Neither, as neither is firing it.
Which model is carrying the gun during the assault phase? Neither, as neither is firing it.

Irrelevant as per my point above. The idea that the weapon magically "disappears" is an assumption not based on the rules.

Therefore, the gun is not being transferred from one model to the other during the shooting phase, rather one chooses to fire and the weapon goes from a state of non existance (other than for coherency) to one of being carried by the model selected at that instant to fire it. The in moment directly after that shooting instance is complete, the gun reverts to a state of non existance.

I can falsify your argument easily. "the weapon goes from a state of non existance(sic)..." as you assert is an assumption. Nowhere do the rules state that the model OR the weapon "don't exist." They state that the platform model itself is ignored. Never do the rules state that the actual weapon ceases to exist, rather they make it quite important that one specific model be designated as "carrying" the weapon by the act of "firing" it.

EDIT: Hopefully this causes you to reassess your logic and argument. Listen to yourself. You're arguing that weapons don't exist, in order to gain an advantage not covered in the rules that is also unprecedented in the game. I shouldn't really have to rebut this argument. I repeat: you are asserting that a weapon/model, which is clearly represented on the table top and accounted for in the rules, at some point doesn't exist? Please. This screams "red flag," and you should desist in this line of reasoning and salvage any credibility you have left as a knowledgeable gamer or logical person.

Its legal although not too many people like the rule its still 100% legal to declare targets from 1 guardian to the other platform gunner conga line fashion. It was a big suprise for alot of people and honestly it does feel like something isint right about the rule. I agree with playing it the way its written but your going to have to do alot of explaining to people who have never read the codex.

The weapon platform is best a WYSIWYG to denote what weapon platform the guardian squad is using. You always could use it as a necklace of Eldar weapons if it serves no other purpose.

Colonel, your argument is based upon the assumption that one model is granted ownership and that the weapon may not be transferred until that model is destroyed because of that ownership.

I've clearly shown that this ownership is momentary and that there is no transference due to the fact that before a model fires the weapon, no model is actually carrying it.

How can the weapon be transferred if no model is in possession of the weapon before the weapon is fired?

The weapon is only being carried by the model firing it while it is being fired, before and after that no one is carrying it per RAW.

Can no one answer the question?

How can the rules demand you *always* ignore the model, and demand that the model maintain coherency?

What if you don't follow the rules, what if the model is not in coherency?

If the model becomes not in coherency, how does it get back into coherency?


There is another meaning for the rules.

The rules state, the platform *must* be in coherency. So if one of the conditions for having the platform is it must be in coherency. So for it to exist, it has to be in coherency, so if it is not in coherency, it stands to reason that it ceases to exist.

Othewise, if there is not repurcusion for losing coherency, why rule that it has to be in coherency?
If it can teleport back into coherency, why rule that it has to be in coherency?

Posted By blue loki on 04/20/2007 5:37 AM
Colonel, your argument is based upon the assumption that one model is granted ownership and that the weapon may not be transferred until that model is destroyed because of that ownership.

I've clearly shown that this ownership is momentary and that there is no transference due to the fact that before a model fires the weapon, no model is actually carrying it.

How can the weapon be transferred if no model is in possession of the weapon before the weapon is fired?

The weapon is only being carried by the model firing it while it is being fired, before and after that no one is carrying it per RAW.

Blue Loki, you've done two things here that I can't respect: You're reposted your argument, with less supporting evidence, without developing your case. You also have failed to even attempt to show where my logic or deductive reasoning failed.

I am assuming nothing. As per my quoted arguments from the RAW above, the rules clearly tell us that ONE (singular, not two but ONE) crewman may fire the weapon. Period. End of story.

It goes on to state that the crewman who fires the weapon, carries it. The rest is laid out very clearly by the main rules. I am assuming nothing, and I am interpreting exactly what the rules tell us without assumption or extra baggage regarding "what I want, how I've seen it played, or what "makes sense."

The fact that the casualty rule specifically allows us to transfer the weapon to the other crewman (if the one armed is the one taken as casualty) UPON THE CASE OF DEATH, and the fact that "the weapon must maintain coherency with at least one crewman" should tell you that, for all intents and purposes, we should in fact use the "one crew may fire" until otherwise exempted.

I repeat: you're asserting that a weapon AND model, which clearly exist and have parameters of use within the rules, at some point ceases to exist, when the rules say or indicate nothing of the sort. Wow.

"How can the weapon be transferred if no model is in possession of the weapon before the weapon is fired?"
Simple. The rules tell us that one crew may fire the weapon. So he doesn't have to, but he can. Once a crew "fires" the weapon, he is "assumed to be carrying" that weapon. Since a model with a special weapon is unique in the squad, it has different rules as laid out in the BBB for casualty removal and models.

So, to summarize, you get a choice which crewman may fire, and the relative position of the platform has no relevance as long as it's in coherency, but once a crewman fires the weapon (even if it's only for one turn of the whole game) the RAW tells us that he is assumed to be carrying the weapon, and the rules we must follow regarding this are quite clear.

Posted By coredump on 04/20/2007 6:48 AM

Can no one answer the question?

How can the rules demand you *always* ignore the model, and demand that the model maintain coherency?

What if you don't follow the rules, what if the model is not in coherency?

If the model becomes not in coherency, how does it get back into coherency?


There is another meaning for the rules.

The rules state, the platform *must* be in coherency. So if one of the conditions for having the platform is it must be in coherency. So for it to exist, it has to be in coherency, so if it is not in coherency, it stands to reason that it ceases to exist.

Othewise, if there is not repurcusion for losing coherency, why rule that it has to be in coherency?
If it can teleport back into coherency, why rule that it has to be in coherency?

Actually, Coredump I've changed my mind on this and I think I've pointed out the answer (albeit indirectly).

The rules tell us to "maintain coherency" and "ignore the model" (NOT THE WEAPON) for all other purposes. Therefore, the model must satisfy the coherency rules laid out at the beginning of the BBB.

Since this comes before anything like "movement' or "unit type" we have to assume that these things are also ignored, and so by the wrote of the rules the platform MODEL itself must simply stay within 2" of a guardian crew. Essentially yes, it can teleport (the Model, which has a clear disconnect from the weapon itself as portrayed in the rules)

You don't seem to be reading what I'm typing, hence the re-post.

You claim that the weapon cannot be transferred between models because the model that fired it last is carrying it. This is your logic that I am addressing.

I've shown that the model who fired it last is no longer carrying it because the rule states that the weapon is only carried while the model using it is "firing" it. When a model is not "firing" the weapon, it is carried by no one. This is my RAW based counter to your logic, go back a few posts to see the RAW quote if you wish.

Therefore, either model can choose to fire it in the shooting phase, as neither one is carrying it at the beginning of said shooting phase, hence it must not be transferred between models. Hence the non-transference rule is not broken. This is my conclusion.


Furthermore, I don't see why you are attempting to make this personal. I am addressing your argument, not you. I suggest you strive to do the same, in this thread and in all others.

Once again, you're assuming that "fired" or "firing" is somehow a temporary state. Where is your justification for this? You can't give any, because it's outside the bounds of the rules as we're given.

"The model firing the weapon is assumed to be carrying it" where, at any point, does this indicate a temporary state of being? Where does it say "no longer counts as carrying" or "this is subject to change" or "the other guardian may fire next turn if he wishes."

You're assuming a whole lot. I understand the confusion over the word "firing," but that's GW for you. A model could be said to be "firing" multiple times, to have "fired" or to be in the act of "firing." Once this occurs, said model is carrying the weapon. Nothing indicates that this is a temporary state, only that the model must be "firing" the weapon in order to be carrying it.

So, in essence your argument is based upon a temporary interpretation of the word "firing" as a temporary state, despite the fact that the rules tell us (in not so few words) that you can't apply temporality to this game. (example: "all shooting is assumed to be simultaneous." and "a model's strength in assault represents firing shots in assault, beating on the opponent, etc..." (okay, so the last one is paraphrased).

But you get the idea. The main body of rules set a precedent that a model can be "firing" at any given time within the scope of the game.

EDIT: This became personal as soon as I started getting attacked or threatened with "less respect" for asserting that we have to play the rules by RAW, as asserted by GW, unless this is otherwise impossible. A more complete understanding of the contiguous rules should in no way earn me disrespect.

It is not I who is assuming.

Firing is the word used, hence firing is the only word to consider when determining who is carrying the weapon.

When you ask yourself "who is carrying the weapon", you must first ask yourself "who is firing the weapon". Not "who will fire", not "who fired", not "who will be firing", not "who is firing for the remainder of this game", not "who is firing today", not "who is firing this month". Only "who is firing".

To ask any other question is to assume that the designers left out verbiage and that you know what verbiage should be inserted.

So, during the shooting phase you ask yourself, "who is carrying the weapon?"
The answer is, "Whoever is firing the weapon."

Then you ask yourself, "Who is firing the weapon?"
The answer is, "No one, yet."


This can be a difficult concept to embrace, and understandably so. Normally, a model may fire what weapons it carries. In this situation, the opposite is true; a model may carry what weapon it fires.

RAW, setting a precedent, in the main rules:


Read the main rules. Apply them to the platform rules where the platform rules are not specific. This is the way we do things, according to GW.

Colonel, your argument is nonsensical.  First of all, the rules explicitly tell us that the guardian firing the gun is not carrying it; we are told to assume that they are carrying it while firing.  Assumption does not equate to the model actually having that weapon on it; it is solely a device for the rules, and we are told to assume it.

Secondly, the rules, precisely as written in that entry, do not require any determination before the game as to which model is the firing model.  All it requires is that the firing model not shoot with its own gun, the shuripult.  Thus, at the beginning of the shooting phase, to follow the rule, you designate a model to trade off firing the shuripult in favor of the Gun.  Next firing phase, there is no prohibition on making the same choice, but for the other model.  In other words, the rules permit "a" member of the crew (not limited at all) to make that trade; therefore you are allowed to make that trade.  Then, there is no language limiting future choices, therefore that prior allowance in the rules is not precluded.

In other words, this system is a permissive rules set, and you are permitted to use either guardian to shoot the Gun.  By RAW, either crewmember may fire the gun, and you are not, by any rule, required to stick with that choice in future turns; that rule simply does not exist.

There is no rule that the Gun somehow "sticks" to the firing model; indeed, it isn't wargear, or a separate item, or a separate thing at all (except for being a model, obviously).  Thus, the rules that apply to wargear, normal weapons, etc. do not apply to it at all.

Now, to disprove what we have been saying, show us this:
    to respond to Blue Loki, show us where a rule states that the word "firing" continues to apply to the guardian crewmember after the end of the shooting phase, i.e. that guardian continues to be a "firing guardian" after the end of the shooting phase.

    To respond to me, please show an explicit rule that states that the permission given for either guardian to fire the gun is no longer applicable in succeeding rounds.

And no, referring to your prior arguments will not work, nor will a statement along the lines of "but I've already said it!"  You have not directly addressed either point.

someone lock this thread its getting hot

Antonin:

From you: "the rules explicitly tell us that the guardian firing the gun is not carrying it." Who is being nonsensical?

"All it requires is that the firing model not shoot with its own gun, the shuripult" They don't say this either. Who has a better understanding of the rules again?

To clarify my argument, for you, since you obviously missed bits:

"One guardian may fire the weapon." This is the first thing that the rules states. You can't add anything or assume anything else. One guardian may fire...  One. The fact that there are two crew, and the rules tell us "one may fire" directly means that we must make a choice which one of the crewmen is to be firing the weapon.

Later, the rules go on to state that "If one crewman is killed, the other crewman may fire the weapon normally." This statement is an exception to the first one, thus why it comes later in the rules.

The requirement that we "assume the model firing is carrying" means that, since only one model "may fire" the weapon, that that model is "carrying" that weapon. Nowhere does it state that "firing" is a conditional term. This is proven by:

P. 14 "Turn Summary" box: "assaults are desperate, bloody affairs where units are fighting in close combat and firing at very close range." Thus, right in the body of the main rules, a unit can be considered to be "firing" even in assault.

Supporting the idea that you can't "switch" if a model is ever considered to be "carrying...":
P. 26, BBB: "it is perfectly fair for a player to avoid taking casualties on heavy weapons if he wants to..." This sets a precedent that the weapon model, and who is holding it, is important, and that for all intents and purposes the model armed with the weapon can't change on the player's whim, because you can "avoid taking casualties on it;" no switching the weapon to another model.

Therefore you cannot logically state that "firing" is a temporary state of being for a model. Even if it is, you're violating a precedent that the model is "assumed to be carrying..." and that, no matter how you twist it, means that that particular model is armed with that particular weapon, just as if it was equipment or wargear, and can't drop it until explicitly stated (upon death).

I repeat (for efficiency's sake, and because you evidently missed it the first time:


I will also repeat:

You are attempting to interpret a rule in order to gain an advantage that is both unprecedented and highly unusual. When you find yourself doing this, ask yourself why, and desist; if your credibility as a sporting gamer is to be preserved.

So what exactly is unprecedented and highly unusual?

There's alot of units out there that have 'highly unusual' abilities that no one else has. (Calidus assassin, Ctan, Tigerious, etc)

Oh, you mean unique models!?

Because Guardians deserve to be classified in the ranks with C'Tan, Named Heroes, and Special Characters?

Stop interjecting with straw man propositions skyth. We don't deserve your pollution, and shouldn't have to listen to your oral diarrhea.

I'm a bit confused as to why you continuously revert to personal attacks. Skyth was simply making a valid observation: there are many instances of unique situations within the rules.

If you don't agree that his point was valid, then that is your right, but you seem to be missing the point of this forum. We are here to debate and clarify rules, not to insult each other. If you disagree with an opinion, state so in a clear calm and polite manner.

I suggest you re-read the stickies scattered throughout Dakka before you make another post.


Right or wrong, you're making yourself look ridiculous.

Skyth has repeatedly tried to interrupt the flow of several threads by interjecting useless or unfounded content. It's getting quite old.

There's such a thing as the "straw man" fallacy for a reason. Maybe you should read some stickies yourself.

If a mild amount of justified ridicule is unbearable to you, you have no business partaking in a public discussion, because you'll inevitably feel hurt. I've expressed an opinion, in a fairly mild and civil way. I haven't resorted to outright name-calling or direct insults, so lay off.

Edit: In fact, I believe I've described the content of  the majority of Skyth's posts quite accurately.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/20/2007 1:12 PM
Skyth has repeatedly tried to interrupt the flow of several threads by interjecting useless or unfounded content. 

I guess your definition of useless or unfounded is anything that differs from your point of view.

And btw, it was not a straw man.  You appeared to be claiming that anything that had rules that was unique to itself that differed from the normal rules should automatically be viewed as being wrong.  I pointed out the hole in that argument.