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.

The implications are that you fire it as Salvo. Are there other implications I am missing.

You regard it as being salvo, which has implications for how you use it. Those implications are spelt out in the Salvo rules.

So you are creating an absolutely restrictive statement there?

That you may ONLY use it as Salvo, when you are also Rapid Fire type?

Please prove the assertion that you may ONLY use it as Salvo. Page and graph

I have made the assertion that you treat it as Salvo using the common English definition, as required. I have supported that .

It a appears you are asserting treat as means something different to the dictionary definition.

I have made no assertion to the presence of the word only, as I have no need to.

You appear to be reading the definition of treat as to say

... may have implications for how you use it.

Please back up that interpretation.

For the people who are arguing it is both Rapid Fire and Salvo, where do you get permission to choose which profile (for lack of a better word) to use?

Every weapon that can be fired with a different profile (whether it is a completely different profile, or just a different weapon type) specifically states that you choose which profile to use.

I am asserting no such thing.

Step back: are you claiming you MUST use it as Salvo, or not?

Are you claiming "treat as" requires replacement? So Rapid Fire is replaced with Salvo?

You have yet to make a clear argument


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
For the people who are arguing it is both Rapid Fire and Salvo, where do you get permission to choose which profile (for lack of a better word) to use?

Every weapon that can be fired with a different profile (whether it is a completely different profile, or just a different weapon type) specifically states that you choose which profile to use.

Thats just a different issue though - the first issue is
Is "treats as" a replacement?

If the answer is "yes" then the second issue never comes up. If the answer is "no" then we still need to come up with an answer on how you determine what profile you use, or if in fact there is no rule actually allowing you to do so and the weapon is essentially useless - but that does not impinge in any way on the first.

It is like pointing out some CCW dont have a derivable profile and so, according to 6th ed, dont function any longer. It doesnt alter that that is what the 6th edition says you must have to be a weapon, and that therefore if you dont have a profile disarming strike cannot affect you.

So rather than head down the second path - resolve the first one first.

So, is "treat as" a replacement?

I am not making an argument I am attempting to understand your position so I can decide if I agree with it or not. As currently presented I do not find your argument persuasive.

I do not see how you are getting around the implications of treating it as Salvo and thus finding permission to treat fire it some other way.

It may be because I am reading implications in the definition of treat as as the plural noun, which means consequences and you are reading it differently. It seems pretty clear to me at least that it is the plural noun in use in that sentence.

You are asserting that the implication is you must fire it as Salvo, yet I do not see that as an implication.

Is that what you think?

I see the "implication" as "you follow the Salvo rules" - but nothing stating you ONLY follow the rules. Your assessment is that the "treat as" is restrictive and exhaustive - you treat it as Salvo and ONLY salvo. Is that accurate?

I have edited my previous post for clarity. Please reread as it should answer that inquiry.

Again - are you stating that "implications" of Salvo is it can ONLy be Salvo?

In otherwords it is a replacement of type: rapid fire with type: salvo?

Please explain

The consequence of treating it as Salvo is that it fires as Salvo. As I read it still actually is rapid fire, but it fires as Salvo, as that is the implication of regarding it as being Salvo.

So as far as I can tell it is not a replacement, but nor can it be fired as a rapid fire weapon. I don't think treat as causes it to gain the Salvo type at all.

I am not really comfortable making this argument though as, as I stated I am trying to assess your argument and see if I agree with it. If I do then we have no conflict. If I do not then I will be able to better form a counter argument based on an understanding of what you are saying. As such I am, or was, holding a neutral position and offering you the chance to persuade me.

I think I am pretty close to fully grasping your argument, however and it pretty much dissuades me of your position, for the reasons mentioned in my previous post.

I think there's wide agreement that "treat as" is equivalent in game terms to "is". Boltguns within 6" of the banner are Salvo.

The problem is that weapons are not prohibited from having two profiles, so we have to find out if "treat as" is also equivalent to "use as". The dictionary definition doesn't actually help us here, so in my view we have to look at precedent in the rules.

This is where the hovering Flyer example comes in. we are told to treat hovering Flyers exactly as Fast Skimmers, which follow completely different - and conflicting - rules for movement. While it is possible to have several vehicle types, to my knowledge no conflicting types exist. Therefore, the correct interpretation must be that in this case "treat as" means "use as" for all intents and purposes, and thus by precedent the same goes for friendly boltguns within 6" of the Banner of Devastation, unless otherwise specified.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again - are you stating that "implications" of Salvo is it can ONLy be Salvo?

In otherwords it is a replacement of type: rapid fire with type: salvo?

Please explain

Treat: To act or behave in a specified manner toward.
One thing all the definitions don't say, is that treat means in addition. Adding one type to another fits no definition of treat.

Weapon types are mutually exclusive. They simply don't work together. In each and every case of a weapon with two types, it has had a unique rule allowing the choice. As noted before this is absent in this case. This can't be "left for another discussion", it has implications here.

Basically the rules don't allow for a weapon with two types.

So we have weapon type A, and Type B.
we are told to treat type A as type B, with the rules not allowing A&B.

So yes, with the restrictions of the rules, in this case, it must be treated as Salvo only.

 grendel083 wrote:

Treat: To act or behave in a specified manner toward.
One thing all the definitions don't say, is that treat means in addition. Adding one type to another fits no definition of treat.

Weapon types are mutually exclusive. They simply don't work together. In each and every case of a weapon with two types, it has had a unique rule allowing the choice. As noted before this is absent in this case. This can't be "left for another discussion", it has implications here.

Basically the rules don't allow for a weapon with two types.

Hmm, this is actually an interesting argument. I was going to tell you that you were wrong, and that page 51 of the rulebook allows a weapon to have two profiles, where the player can choose which to use, but the Banner of Devastation actually only modifies the type - there's nothing about a second profile. If Salvo is supposed to represent a new profile line, then we are strictly speaking missing the range, strength and AP.

tgjensen wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Treat: To act or behave in a specified manner toward.
One thing all the definitions don't say, is that treat means in addition. Adding one type to another fits no definition of treat.

Weapon types are mutually exclusive. They simply don't work together. In each and every case of a weapon with two types, it has had a unique rule allowing the choice. As noted before this is absent in this case. This can't be "left for another discussion", it has implications here.

Basically the rules don't allow for a weapon with two types.

Hmm, this is actually an interesting argument. I was going to tell you that you were wrong, and that page 51 of the rulebook allows a weapon to have two profiles, where the player can choose which to use, but the Banner of Devastation actually only modifies the type - there's nothing about a second profile. If Salvo is supposed to represent a new profile line, then we are strictly speaking missing the range, strength and AP.

Yep, profile is different.
Compare the Missile Launcher to the Psycannon.
Missile launcher has multiple profiles, which is fine.
Psycannon has multiple types, and requires a rule (specific to the Psycannon, it's not a general rule) allowing the choice.

As others have said, pretty easy to see it is able to acquire TL but not RF.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - by the same token as another thread, the rule does not say "treat as ONLY" Salvo, meaning it is not saying it is *exclusively* salvo.

So to turn it around - where is the rule requiring that you "treat as ONLY" salvo? Please cite page and paragraph.

Secondly - treat as is not the same as use as. That has no rules reference you can find.

I hand you a toothpick and tell you to treat it as a chain sword.
Can you get that annoying piece of meat out of your teeth without cutting off your head?

Treat as is the same as count as which is the same as is. The Bolter is Salvo. Find permission to make it read The Bolter is Salvo in addition to something else. DR has failed at every opportunity to show this - perhaps you could.

Drager - so you are stating the definite article "the", as in the singular consequence [was implication] is it fires as Salvo?

So again, you are creating a restrictive statement - it is Salvo (treat as == is, all the way through the 40k rules) and no other type.

Grendel - do you know what else is missing from that definition? Any mention of exclusivity. There is no "only" in that statement. It does not need to state "in addition" as, by failing to restrict it is left open - it is non-exhaustive, to bring in another thread

I also disagree that whether or not the resulting salvo / rapidfire weapon could actualy work is at all relevant to this argument, as you are now saying BECAUSE the resultant mix is inoperable that means the rule is wrong, and must be something else - that is a HYWPI argument, not a strict rules based one.

"Basically the rules don't allow for a weapon with two types"
This, strictly, is a false statement. The rules do not tell you how they operate, but they do not place any restrictions on those weapon types existing in the first place. There is no a priori restriction, which is what your argument hinges upon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Drager - so you are stating the definite article "the", as in the singular consequence [was implication] is it fires as Salvo?

So again, you are creating a restrictive statement - it is Salvo (treat as == is, all the way through the 40k rules) and no other type

I am not creating a restrictive statement. I am reading one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Basically the rules don't allow for a weapon with two types"
This, strictly, is a false statement. The rules do not tell you how they operate, but they do not place any restrictions on those weapon types existing in the first place. There is no a priori restriction, which is what your argument hinges upon.

That'll teach me for not being completely precise on the Internet.

"Basically the rules don't allow for a functioning weapon with two types"
Better?

You can continue to state that "treat as" does not mean "treat only as", but equally you can't show that "Treat as" means "Treat in addition to".

Now there are two interpretations, and one of those does not function.

And, again, I am asking you to explain how it is restrictive, as the reading I have given of your own quotes does not place any restrictions

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And, again, I am asking you to explain how it is restrictive, as the reading I have given of your own quotes does not place any restrictions

A weapon can't function with two types. That's pretty restrictive.

And, as has already been pointred out, is a different rules argument entirely

You are doing this backwards: you have decided the outcome is unworkable, and have stated that means you cannot arrive at the outcome, therefore the answer is that Salvo replaces Rapid Fire

You havent actually provided proof of that, and your quotes in fact show the opposite - that treat as is NOT restrictive as you claim.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And, again, I am asking you to explain how it is restrictive, as the reading I have given of your own quotes does not place any restrictions

Yes it does, as far as I could see you have only been reinforcing the restrictive reading the last couple of posts. I don't know where the disconnect in our thinking is so I cannot make it any clearer for you, apologies.

You are not following my argument any more than I am following yours, we appear to be on the same page right to the end of the definition of treats as, with regards to implications/consequences.

Yes - you are stating it only has one implication, whereas the actual definition does not state that. The definition does not state that the ONLY implications are....

the definition is very open ended as to what it allows.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes - you are stating it only has one implication, whereas the actual definition does not state that. The definition does not state that the ONLY implications are....

the definition is very open ended as to what it allows.

No, I'm not. What are the other implications of treating it as Salvo? I am not disregarding further implications, I just can't think of any, though any that exist apply.

Also the word only would mean nothing in the definition of treats as, so why would you expect it to appear?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And, as has already been pointred out, is a different rules argument entirely

You are doing this backwards: you have decided the outcome is unworkable, and have stated that means you cannot arrive at the outcome, therefore the answer is that Salvo replaces Rapid Fire

You havent actually provided proof of that, and your quotes in fact show the opposite - that treat as is NOT restrictive as you claim.

And in a similar respect, you haven't provided proof that it becomes Salvo AND Rapid Fire.
So would you say both interpretations are valid?
Yet one doesn't function?

Seriously - "Treat as" is an exhaustive statement as it means the same thing as "is" not "is in addition to" or "is with some caveats".

There's no permission to allow a second Type.

A is B.

that does not mean the same thing as

A is B(+C)

The onus on proving the loss of something (rapid fire) should surely be on your side? You have yet to do so.

If you have impassable terrain that is treated as difficult, is it now JUST difficult terrain? The rules are as silent on having multiple terrain types as the rules for weapons are on having multiple weapon types.

This is DRs consistency argument - so far your argument leads to Impassable terrain becoming passable (a strict benefit) because you have attempted to weaken the opponent.

So no, I do not think both are valid - as you have created a restriciton that is entirely absent from the written definition, is absent from the rules in the main book. Do I think this then causes issues? Yes, however that does not suddenly makie your interpretation a valid one.

Models drawing LOS from their eyes meaning some models cannot shoot does not make the rule different in the first place. It just means most people change the rule.

Here as the written rule does not function (you end up with a weapon you cannot fire, as you cannot pick a type) the quesiton then becomes - what to do about it

Do you create a dual profile? One with type: rapid fire, and one with type: Salvo?

Do you replace the Rapid fire type with Salvo?

As to whcih to choose - I dont see any way of picking, as there is no intent argument that can be made.

Drager - again, you are creating a restrictive statement - that in order to treat the weapon as salvo, you must ONLY fire it as salvo. That isnt in the definition of "treats"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you have impassable terrain that is treated as difficult, is it now JUST difficult terrain? The rules are as silent on having multiple terrain types as the rules for weapons are on having multiple weapon types.

Right, and I admitted that in the terrain discussion he was correct RAW but the Intent was obvious in that case.

This is DRs consistency argument - so far your argument leads to Impassable terrain becoming passable (a strict benefit) because you have attempted to weaken the opponent.

I'm being entirely consistent.

Here as the written rule does not function (you end up with a weapon you cannot fire, as you cannot pick a type) the quesiton then becomes - what to do about it

I've proven that incorrect.

Actually rigeld you havent proven it, you made an assertion.

A(X,y,z) is treated as (X') means you have A(X,X', y, z)