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 ... not going to bother answering my questions then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are creating a restrictive statement from an open one

You're saying it's open. The rules disagree.

You have taken a statement which is open (treat as) and stated it must be closed (treat as only) with no permission to do so.

The actual rules require it.

Your method breaks Enfeeble and Impassable terrain, and mine breaks no rules either whereas I have absolute proof that yours does

I used to think that was correct, but now I don't. Nothing breaks using my interpretation. I'm not saying that "treat as" only ever means "treat as only".

Chariot Pilots are NOT in base to base. If they were in Base to Base they would lock the unit in close combat, and they do not do so. Oh look, they are BOTH in b2b AND not in b2b at the same time!

They aren't locked because - wait for it - a rule says they aren't locked.

BRB 82 wrote:Note that, as a vehicle, the Chariot (and its rider, whilst embarked) cannot be locked in combat.

It's almost like you need a rule to create an exception to a previous rule. What a concept.
Where's your exception for breaking the rule on page 50?

Context tells me to add this new profile, not to replace it.

Oh your old fallback when you have no other way to support your argument. Cute.
No, there's no context here that says you can break the rule on page 50.

You treat a rapid fire weapon as a salvo 2/4 weapon.

You don't treat a rapid fire weapon being treated as a salvo weapon as a weapon with two types. It would say so if that was the case. It is salvo 2/4 when it is within banner range. If you move outside of banner range, then it is a rapid fire weapon again as per usual. Rapid fire didn't get removed, it was just converted into something else temporarily. Rapid fire = salvo 2/4 when within 6" of a banner of devastation.

If you disagree with my argument then thats fine.

If you don't want a strict argument then you should not be looking at RAW for answers.

My question is how is the DA banner worded?

Does the banner "grant" the salvo weapon type to the weapons in the area affect? If so, then it stands to reason that this is an additional weapon type and can be used in one or the other fashion.

If the rule states "replace" weapon type with salvo then it is cut and dry it becomes salvo and is not rapid any longer.

It specifically says that the boltgun [a rapid-fire weapon] is treated as a salvo 2/4 weapon.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
If you treat bolters as rapid fire are you treating them as salvo 2/4?

Yes, you are just not firing the Salvo profile.

What your not getting is there is no salvo profile. No new profile is created. It does not tell you change or recreated the profile in any way. It gets treated as if salvo regardless of the profile, meaning it uses the rules for firing salvo 2/4 weapons. If you fire a rapid fire weapon treating it as a salvo weapon, ie using the slavo rules, you are effectively firing a salvo weapon and for simplicity's sake can just call it salvo because for all intents and purposes that is what it is. It is not an addition. It's not even really a replacement but it is easier to think of it that way because the net result is the same.

I'd be ok with you using your rapid fire profile so long as you treat it as, as in observe the rules for and count it as, salvo 2/4 when you do so. Which pretty much means you'd be firing salvo 2/4.

 warpspider89 wrote:
It specifically says that the boltgun [a rapid-fire weapon] is treated as a salvo 2/4 weapon.

Okay thanks. It seems to me then that if a weapon is "treated" as a specific type then it has all of the behavoir of and operational characteristics of the "treated" type.

This does not change in any way that the bolter is a Rapid Fire weapon, it does say that the bolter is treated as a Salvo 2/4 weapon. In short it is a Rapid Fire weapon that fires as if it were a Salvo 2/4 weapon. It would have been clearer to word it as "replaces" but alas it is not so.