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.

It wrote:No, because FRFSRF is an evil, evil rule that no-one should have!!!! I don't care how guard are normally, they DON'T NEED THIS!!!

Thank you It you opinion is duly noted. How ever since they do have this we will continue to argue whether it works for hotshot lasguns or not.

Seems to me there isn't really enough information to completely sway me either way. There are good arguments to both sides and I think it just comes down to how you perceive the rules working on the whole. To me there seems to be three viewpoints:

1) You believe that the rules must expressly forbid you from doing something otherwise you are allowed - Yes FRFSRF works with HS Lasguns
2) You believe that the rules must expressly ALLOW you to do something (and you believe the rule in this case says you can) or you are not allowed - Yes FRFSRF works with HS Lasguns
3) You believe that the rules must expressly ALLOW you to do something (and you believe the rule in this case says you can't) or you are not allowed - No FRFSRF does not work with HS Lasguns

Personally I'm leaning towards group 2, but I'm more than happy to vote democratically. To expedite the process let's just allow one representative from each group to vote. Result = 2 Yes, 1 No.

Well who would've expected... that's splendid!

To the gaming table, my friends, I have orders to vox!

DoW

"4) You believe that the rules must expressly ALLOW you to do something (and you believe the rule in this case does not says you can) or you are not allowed - No FRFSRF does not work with HS Lasguns " (minor word change but that still changes the meaning)
has my vote but in a friendly game I'm normally happy to bend the rules.

I'm channelling the ghost of Gwar....

He says that unless the rules specifically say you can do something you can't do it.

Gwar! wrote: The rules don't say that I can't make a roll of 1+ and win the game. So on a 1+, I win the game

Not to, you know, change positions or anything.

Just ignore the storm troopers and go for phase out.

So, the rules for "Terminator armor" refer to "terminators"(as many times as they refer to models in terminator armor).

Do the rules for FRFSRF refer to Hellguns or Hot Shot Lasguns? (Specifically.)

If so, I totally see Timmah(and co.)'s point.

I need to just buy that codex.

Tri wrote:"4) You believe that the rules must expressly ALLOW you to do something (and you believe the rule in this case does not says you can) or you are not allowed - No FRFSRF does not work with HS Lasguns " (minor word change but that still changes the meaning)
has my vote but in a friendly game I'm normally happy to bend the rules.

Ah good correction, you're absolutely right.

gardeth wrote:Just ignore the storm troopers and go for phase out.

Nice.

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:Seems to me there isn't really enough information to completely sway me either way. There are good arguments to both sides and I think it just comes down to how you perceive the rules working on the whole. To me there seems to be three viewpoints:

1) You believe that the rules must expressly forbid you from doing something otherwise you are allowed - Yes FRFSRF works with HS Lasguns
2) You believe that the rules must expressly ALLOW you to do something (and you believe the rule in this case says you can) or you are not allowed - Yes FRFSRF works with HS Lasguns
3) You believe that the rules must expressly ALLOW you to do something (and you believe the rule in this case says you can't) or you are not allowed - No FRFSRF does not work with HS Lasguns

Personally I'm leaning towards group 2, but I'm more than happy to vote democratically. To expedite the process let's just allow one representative from each group to vote. Result = 2 Yes, 1 No.

Well who would've expected... that's splendid!

To the gaming table, my friends, I have orders to vox!

DoW

This question 1. is complete nonsense and should go in no-one's favour, because it doesn't follow the way that the rules are suppose to be followed. The rule set is permissive. A rule needs to allow you to do it. 1.'s way of interpretation also lets stormbolters fire hellfire ammo, which we know cannot happen.



Terminators are not the same as Assault Terminators. Chaos Space Marines were the only ones who could user Fabius Bile last codex, and Possessed Chaos Space Marines could not. (The only reason for argument in this codex is a table which brings confusion on the issue.)

Stormbolters cannot fire hellfire, even though they are essentially two bolters glued together, and logic dictates they should! Hotshot Lasguns cannot FRFSRF because they are Hotshot lasguns, not just lasguns.

Other codices have set a precedent. It's what's specifically allowed in the rules, not what makes sense in fluff. Otherwise I demand space marines to be higher-statted that Movie Marine list.

im completely out of depth lol. both sides do have good arguments. does any1 have any idea when GW will publish an errata or FAQ?

The Angry Commissar wrote:im completely out of depth lol. both sides do have good arguments. does any1 have any idea when GW will publish an errata or FAQ?

When they feel like it ... Christmas?

Tri wrote:

The Angry Commissar wrote:im completely out of depth lol. both sides do have good arguments. does any1 have any idea when GW will publish an errata or FAQ?

When they feel like it ... Christmas?

of 2012? lol

A "hotshot lasgun" is still a lasgun, IMO. "Hotshot" is a (silly) adjective.

A "puny" lasgun is a lasgun, as is a "ineffective" lasgun or a "laughable" lasgun.




A better question may be why do I wade into threads like this?


Where's that IG FAQ already...

Nyarlathotep: So you agreee that a heavy bolter and a stormbolter are both bolters?

A hotshot lasgun in the game is absolutely not the same as a lasgun. They are different weapons with different profiles. Those saying HSLGs are included are arguing for the creation of a lasgun category ala pistols. the problem is, nowhere in the rules is such a category created- the only reference to a "lasgun" is the singular weapon which does not state that it inlcudes the HSLG.

So they turn to grammar rules. The problem is that normal grammar sules do not necessarily apply to a specialized context, especially when using defined terms. Is this such a case? Hard to tell as GW doesn't give us much guidance.

Clouding the water with terminators doesn't really help as terminators as a unit and as a category (models wearing terminator armor) are both defined. Additionally, it is somewhat different from the description of models and weapons as the guardsmen are not described as "lasgunners" or similar due to equipment.

Strictly applying the words as written, though, the rule applies to lasguns (and only lasguns, not lascannons, laspistols, or any other las weaponry- remember that this is a ruleset where you can only do what the rules specifically allow). "hotshot lasguns" != "lasguns", so models equipped with them would not benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jmurph wrote:Nyarlathotep: So you agreee that a heavy bolter and a stormbolter are both bolters? Please reference me the page with the stats for a "puny lasgun" in the rules. I see "lasgun" and "hotshot lasgun" are both in there.

A hotshot lasgun in the game is absolutely not the same as a lasgun. They are different weapons with different profiles. Those saying HSLGs are included are arguing for the creation of a lasgun category ala pistols. the problem is, nowhere in the rules is such a category created- the only reference to a "lasgun" is the singular weapon which does not state that it inlcudes the HSLG.

So they turn to grammar rules. The problem is that normal grammar sules do not necessarily apply to a specialized context, especially when using defined terms. Is this such a case? Hard to tell as GW doesn't give us much guidance.

Clouding the water with terminators doesn't really help as terminators as a unit and as a category (models wearing terminator armor) are both defined. Additionally, it is somewhat different from the description of models and weapons as the guardsmen are not described as "lasgunners" or similar due to equipment.

Strictly applying the words as written, though, the rule applies to lasguns (and only lasguns, not lascannons, laspistols, or any other las weaponry- remember that this is a ruleset where you can only do what the rules specifically allow). "hotshot lasguns" != "lasguns", so models equipped with them would not benefit.

The storm bolter to bolter comparision is a fallacious argument due to one being rapid fire and the other being assault 2.

The Hot shot has a slightly reduced range but is still a rapid fire lasgun.

The entire argument comes down to whether you can add descriptive words to equipment without changing it.

If you accept that you can, then hotshot lasgun = lasgun
Assault terminator = terminator
Heavy bolter = bolter (of sorts)

If you don't accept this than hotshot lasgun =! lasgun
Assault terminator =! terminator
Heavy bolter =! bolter (of sorts)

Either way, I would say you need to stay consistant.

Timmah wrote:The entire argument comes down to whether you can add descriptive words to equipment without changing it.

If you accept that you can, then hotshot lasgun = lasgun
Assault terminator = terminator
Heavy bolter = bolter (of sorts)

If you don't accept this than hotshot lasgun =! lasgun
Assault terminator =! terminator
Heavy bolter =! bolter (of sorts)

Either way, I would say you need to stay consistant.

*sigh*

I suppose this means that assault terminators can sweeping advance by RAW?

@Focusedfire: There is a change in the profile. It doesn't matter whether it's by the range of one inch, or by ten strength points, 40 inches and the ap of it. The argument is that weapons with descriptive words do not use the rules of the original weapon when convenient.

Pika_power wrote:

Timmah wrote:The entire argument comes down to whether you can add descriptive words to equipment without changing it.

If you accept that you can, then hotshot lasgun = lasgun
Assault terminator = terminator
Heavy bolter = bolter (of sorts)

If you don't accept this than hotshot lasgun =! lasgun
Assault terminator =! terminator
Heavy bolter =! bolter (of sorts)

Either way, I would say you need to stay consistant.

*sigh*

I suppose this means that assault terminators can sweeping advance by RAW?

@Focusedfire: There is a change in the profile. It doesn't matter whether it's by the range of one inch, or by ten strength points, 40 inches and the ap of it. The argument is that weapons with descriptive words do not use the rules of the original weapon when convenient.

No both because both units (Terminators and Assualt Terminators) are both made up of Terminator models who wear terminator armour

Tri wrote:
No both because both units (Terminators and Assualt Terminators) are both made up of Terminator models who wear terminator armour

Exactly. The terminator example is obfuscation. "Terminators" are a defined term both as a unit and category. However, it only refers to one piece of equipment that is present on all types. Ignoring the completely different AP and range value, I guess you could say hotshots and lasguns are the same- all that matters is that they are both rapid fire weapons with lasgun in the name

jmurph wrote:

Tri wrote:
No both because both units (Terminators and Assualt Terminators) are both made up of Terminator models who wear terminator armour

Exactly. The terminator example is obfuscation. "Terminators" are a defined term both as a unit and category. However, it only refers to one piece of equipment that is present on all types. Ignoring the completely different AP and range value, I guess you could say hotshots and lasguns are the same- all that matters is that they are both rapid fire weapons with lasgun in the name

You could but the flaw lies in the simple fact that both units do not get lasguns. If they got lasguns and a rule ie Hotshot where their lasguns counted as AP3 but lost a bit of range maybe. Now I'm sure people are going to say things like why would GW do this or what ever. Simple fact Thousand sons get bolters that fire at AP3 its still a bolter. Where as Storm troopers do not get Lasguns.

Pika_power wrote:

@Focusedfire: There is a change in the profile. It doesn't matter whether it's by the range of one inch, or by ten strength points, 40 inches and the ap of it. The argument is that weapons with descriptive words do not use the rules of the original weapon when convenient.

You may be right except GW does exactly that whenever it "is" convienent. Usually for the SMs. This era of BT stormshields not being the same as Ultramarine storm shields is a very recent occurance and I don't think it will last. Terminator armor will probably go back to being generic as the various codices are released and customers complain that things with the same names and different values are too confusing. Blessed ammunition rules suddenly come to mind for some reason. I may need to check.

The point I'm getting at is That the FRFSRF rule applies to rapid fire Lasguns and the Hotshot is a Rapid fire Lasgun. Arguments can be made both ways and the same is true for some of the supporting evidence such as officers available to give orders and whether Storms are allowed to recieve orders.

The Storms "are" allowed to recieve orders if within range of an officer but get "no" officer of their own to issue such orders when they are in forward positions which is where they are supposed to be.
Because of this I look at this as intentional design to balance(You want to use the rule then you have to put a command squad in Jepoardy) but just as many arguments can be made that the design is to dicourage such attempts.

If GW ever gets around to doing an Errata don't be surprised that GW goes against whichever is the prevailing line of thought on the subject.

Now my personal opinion on the rule is that it isn't game breaking and I play Tau. My army would be hurt more by this than the SM players I hear so vehemently saying no to whether the rule applies. Also I can't see the Storms being priced the way they are unless the rule applied. I don't think their pricing is as horrendous as a ;ot would say but without the rule I'd say they are overpriced by a point or two. Just my opinion.

Pika_power wrote:

@Focusedfire: There is a change in the profile. It doesn't matter whether it's by the range of one inch, or by ten strength points, 40 inches and the ap of it. The argument is that weapons with descriptive words do not use the rules of the original weapon when convenient.

Counter Example:
Necrons: Gauss weapons:
note: gauss weapons do not have Gauss in their type but only in their name despite the change in profile.

Are there any non-gauss necron weapons? AFAIK, there are none, so I could argue that it is applied to all Necron weaponry.

Also, I don't have a Necron codex, so I would appreciate the paragraph.

Also, unless it specifically refers to a specific gauss weapon, it doesn't count. This one is saying Lasguns get it, and you are arguing hot-shot Lasguns should too. All Gauss names are different apart from the Gauss cannon/heavy Gauss cannon.

Also, the Necron dex is from third edition, much like the Dark Eldar dex. Anyone could easily drive a destruction-derby truck through one of those codices, saying they don't follow current profile formats, etc. If you have to resort to using them as a counter argument when pitched against the much more recent Space Marines codex, I'd say your example is inferior.

Lacross wrote:Counter Example:
Necrons: Gauss weapons:
note: gauss weapons do not have Gauss in their type but only in their name despite the change in profile.

Doesn't the Necron 'dex specifically say that the rules apply to 'all weapons with Gauss in their name' or something IIRC?

If my memory serves me well, the staff of light isn't a gauss weapon

Pika_power wrote:
Stormbolters cannot fire hellfire, even though they are essentially two bolters glued together, and logic dictates they should! Hotshot Lasguns cannot FRFSRF because they are Hotshot lasguns, not just lasguns.

Other codices have set a precedent. It's what's specifically allowed in the rules, not what makes sense in fluff. Otherwise I demand space marines to be higher-statted that Movie Marine list.

QFT

If hot shot lasguns can use FRFSRF then I'm going to have lots of fun using psy-bolts on land raider crusaders' hurricane bolters.

Either way, it's still an older codex, with many flaws when compared to the current rules, especially with their special rules. I consider using Necron special rules in a rules argument to prove any RAW point for a more recent codex is a null point, because of how much in need of an update the Necron codex is. I place it on the same level as the DE codex and the WH/DH codices. All of them are in need of an update before they can be used without a dash of RAI. The most recent precedent has been in the SM codex, with Stormbolters not being able to fire hellfire rounds. And don't give me anything about it being assault 2 rather than rapid fire, it's a separate weapon just as the Hotshot-lasgun is, despite any logical reasoning.

Pika_power wrote:Either way, it's still an older codex, with many flaws when compared to the current rules, especially with their special rules. I consider using Necron special rules in a rules argument to prove any RAW point for a more recent codex is a null point, because of how much in need of an update the Necron codex is. I place it on the same level as the DE codex and the WH/DH codices. All of them are in need of an update before they can be used without a dash of RAI. The most recent precedent has been in the SM codex, with Stormbolters not being able to fire hellfire rounds. And don't give me anything about it being assault 2 rather than rapid fire, it's a separate weapon just as the Hotshot-lasgun is, despite any logical reasoning.

adding to the above ....
bolter and storm bolter are both the same range, Strength and AP.Lasguns and hot shot lasguns are both the same Strength and Firing type.
Lasguns and hotshots are less alike then stormbolters and bolters, The bolters share 3 characteristics where as the lasguns only share 2.

The number of characteristics shared is irrelevant.
If a single char is changed AND it has a different name.....how can it not be a different weapon....

So do the "Lasguns" have a nice little section, like Terminator armor, that uses both names interchangeably?

I mean as opposed to a whole different set of rules, like Storm Bolters, Heavy Bolters, and Bolters?

That is what I go by, generally speaking.

I am slow picking up that codex, so I cannot just go read.

Geez, we're still arguing about this?

Maybe people are a little too concerned with the precedent, rather than the instance, of the rule.

In this INSTANCE, I don't think it was RAI to have the hot-shots use this order. It could possibly unbalance the game. Can you imagine a deepstriking unit, with an AP3 weapon, firing 30 times into the rear of a formation? Granted, its at str 3, but that could still wreck some SM's day. Of course... its not like GW has NEVER put out a broken unit before...