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.

I have demonstrated many times the specifically started rules where the Techmarine can fire both the Quad Gun and the Thunderfire Cannon.

It specifically says that he can fire the Quad Gun when he's in base contact with it. It also specifically states that he can fire the Thunderfire Cannon.

There is no rule to state that firing one prohibits firing the other.

So there you go, there is the permissive ruleset specifically starting what I can do.


Well, apart that there is no definition for ownership. Once we figure that out, then we're golden.

DR has clearly laid out why the Techmarine cannot fire the Quad gun. You are simply trying to use the word "carrying" to justify breaking the rules by completely ignoring the context of the rule itself.

 AG. wrote:
I have demonstrated many times the specifically started rules where the Techmarine can fire both the Quad Gun and the Thunderfire Cannon.

You have not shown anything that says the Techmarine can fore more than one weapon in the shooting phase.

It specifically says that he can fire the Quad Gun when he's in base contact with it. It also specifically states that he can fire the Thunderfire Cannon.

There is no rule to state that firing one prohibits firing the other.

Page 51 disagrees, to fire more than one weapon you have to have an exception, the Techmarine does not have an exception.

So there you go, there is the permissive ruleset specifically starting what I can do.
Well, apart that there is no definition for ownership. Once we figure that out, then we're golden.

As per above.

The BRB does not define ownership so we use the standard definition of ownership, The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as

"Definition of ownership: noun: the act, state, or right of possessing something"

The Artillery gun and the techmarine are the same unit and the Techmarine does possess the gun. Linguistically this is true.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AG. wrote:
I have demonstrated many times the specifically started rules where the Techmarine can fire both the Quad Gun and the Thunderfire Cannon.

You have not shown anything that says the Techmarine can fore more than one weapon in the shooting phase.

It specifically says that he can fire the Quad Gun when he's in base contact with it. It also specifically states that he can fire the Thunderfire Cannon.

There is no rule to state that firing one prohibits firing the other.

Page 51 disagrees, to fire more than one weapon you have to have an exception, the Techmarine does not have an exception.

So there you go, there is the permissive ruleset specifically starting what I can do.
Well, apart that there is no definition for ownership. Once we figure that out, then we're golden.

As per above.

The BRB does not define ownership so we use the standard definition of ownership, The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as

"Definition of ownership: noun: the act, state, or right of possessing something"

The Artillery gun and the techmarine are the same unit and the Techmarine does possess the gun. Linguistically this is true.

Or, does the gun possess the Techmarine?

Linguistically, the inanimate object can not possess a living being. The opposite is what is true.

 AG. wrote:
There is no rule to state that firing one prohibits firing the other.

He fires the quad gun instead of his own weapon.

In the absence of a rules definition of ownership, the fact that he is the crewman for the artillery piece should be sufficient. The Thunderfire is his weapon.

You can not fire both.

 insaniak wrote:

 AG. wrote:
There is no rule to state that firing one prohibits firing the other.

He fires the quad gun instead of his own weapon.

In the absence of a rules definition of ownership, the fact that he is the crewman for the artillery piece should be sufficient. The Thunderfire is his weapon.

You can not fire both.

100% of what Insaniak said is true.

Linguistically we know the Thunderfire is his weapon, so it does not matter. Either way he can not fire both in the same shooting phase.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Linguistically, the inanimate object can not possess a living being. The opposite is what is true.

Linguistically? Nope. It works grammatically. The sentence "The rock possesses my spirit" makes sense syntactically and linguistically - the meanings follow.

You mean philosophically, an inanimate object cannot possess a living being. Or, perhaps more precisely, logically.

But we all know that "you cannot apply modern, real-world logic to 40k" as you are so fond of saying.

No i mean Linguistically, as in relating to language. The language used to describe an inanimate object and a creature shows that the inanimate object can not possess a living being.

We can not "apply modern, real-world logic to 40k" as far as reasonings for rules. A bolter being 100% deadly at 24 inches and 100% ineffective at 24.0000001 inches does not make any logical sense, but the rules dictate this is how it is so we use that RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:
No i mean Linguistically, as in relating to language. The language used to describe an inanimate object and a creature shows that the inanimate object can not possess a living being.

That's quite a claim, as I can think of several poetic times when it could be said that an inanimate object could possess a living one. For example, if I am obsessed with a certain pencil, one could say "That pencil possesses Unit1126PLL" as a way of expressing my unrelenting obsession.

Also, I disagree with you on a more fundamental level. Language is used to express concepts, and the only time something fails to function linguistically is if a concept cannot be derived from it. However, I can imagine an inanimate object (especially one with a Machine-Spirit, such as a Thunderfire Cannon) possessing a living being, and so it is not a false use of language to say so.

It may be a false premise to say that an inanimate object can possess a living being, but that does not necessarily mean it does not linguistically work.


EDIT:

As for your edit, why the exception? We cannot apply real-world logic to the rules of 40k when they apply to gun ranges, but not to who possesses what weapon? Why the exception?

How about we leave the philosophical debate for somewhere more appropriate?

right here we go lots of page quoting:
Page 73: CSM: Each Thunderfire Cannon is crewed by a single Techmarine(see page 71 for special rules) Note that the Techmarine does not benefit from Independant Character and Blessing of the Omnissiah special rules unless his Thunderfire Cannon has been destroyed.

Clearly states the Tech Marine is a crewman of the Thunderfire Cannon aka an artillery piece

next we go to the page that lists the special rules for the Techmarine and HIS Thunderfire Cannon ARTILLERY weapon
Page 142: CSM: Thunderfire Cannon: Special Rules: And They shall No Fear, Combat Tactics, Blessing Of Omnissiah, Bolster Defenses, also see Unit Type, where it nice and clearly states ARTILLERY

Page 51: More Than One Weapon: Unless otherwise stated if a model HAS more than one weapon he must choose which one to shoot

Well this is nice and simple, we see here the unit is classed as artillery and gains a few other decent special rules to use. IT HOWEVER does NOT contain the Monstrous Creature USR or Vehicle special Rule, the only rules I know of other than model (or unit specific) codex entries. So in conclusion on this section, we have here in established that the Techmarine is no longer and independant character and directly a crew member of the TFC essentially making it one of his weapons to choose from if you really want. Also he may only fire 1 weapon.

now for the actual Cannon and rules specific to the firing of weapons (to those who have helped through providing previous page numbers in thethread thank you you made it easier for me)
Page 46: Artillery: The Unit: Artillery Units consister of a number of crew models and the gun models themselves. These units are quite complex as thehy can include several different types of models. The Gun models have the following profile, WS- BS- S- T7 W2 I- A- Ld- SV3+

Page 46: Shooting With Artillery: Otherwise, one crewman that is with in 2" of a gun in the shooting phase can fire it. The crewman firing the gun cannot fire any weapons they are carrying, (there is more but irrelevant)

(while we are on the subject it also states that if the crew is dead the gun is removed thus allowing us to assume like the bomb squigs of orks as an example that they belong to the crew are owned by the crew carried by the crew etc etc etc)

so here we establish that the 1 crewman aka the Techmarine has to be withing 2 inches to fire it, it cannot fire on its own, and has a nifty looking profile for the actual gun, and if the Techmarine fires it he cant fire any other weapon he is carrying.

Page 105: Gun Emplacement: One model in base contact with the gun emplacement can fire it instead of his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting.

now we have some well established base line information from all relevant sources referenced and quoted for this sad argument for rule breaking lets get down with it.

the servo harness has a rule that allows you to fire its 2 mounted weapons together or one of them and another weapon simultaneously,which in this case would allow you to fire it and the TFC together (the rule specifically says you may fire a plasma pistol or flamer and thunderfire cannon in combo) so awesome we have some precedence here, now since the marine is crewing the TFC he is required to sacrifice his shooting of any other gear he carries (with previously stated exception) in order to fire the cannon.

HE IS AFTER ALL A CREWMAN and the only crewman

Now we go onto what who is carrying what, there is nothing in the rule book that states anywhere that a model is considered to carry the weapons listed on its profile directly, so to say that as the TM is a crew member of the cannon and can there for fire it and the gun is ridiculous claim to start, although i do see your argument as the gun has a profile itself. Since it has no BS it needs someone to fire it for them. as per Artillery rules.

So it means the TM has to fire either the TFC or QG plus a flamer or plasma pistol, not both

Stop playing semantics and using the exact wording of the rule. We all know games work-shop are slowed and don't proof read their own work. IF you tried pulling this BS at a tournament youd be challenged straight awayto proove it and find any ref with half a brain telling you where to go and docking you points for unsportman like conduct.

I've wondered the same thing about the warpsmith, he has the ability to fire 2 weapons. Can he fire a quad gun and heal a tank he's in b2b with?

Hey Chris, thanks for taking the time to reply in a comprehensive manner. I can't help myself saying this though;

I'm happy to put the issue to bed, but you know, don't post in a thread about rules abuse if you don't like rules abuse. My opening paragraph is about how it isn't fair, isn't intended etc.

The point still stands that every word in the rulebook is just as important as every other, and ownership isn't defined. The definition in the dictionary doesn't really help us in this case.

But whatevs, we're cool baby.

@Gharron without seeing the actual warpsmith rules if he works like a TM then no as you'd have to surrender your right to shoot in order to repair a vehicle


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AG. wrote:
Hey Chris, thanks for taking the time to reply in a comprehensive manner. I can't help myself saying this though;

I'm happy to put the issue to bed, but you know, don't post in a thread about rules abuse if you don't like rules abuse. My opening paragraph is about how it isn't fair, isn't intended etc.

The point still stands that every word in the rulebook is just as important as every other, and ownership isn't defined. The definition in the dictionary doesn't really help us in this case.

But whatevs, we're cool baby.

the point still stands that games-workshop are slowed and post a new edition rule book that allows for new stuff but then forgets that the older stuff is there and doesn't clarify it nice and clearly which then causes people like your self to go well he aint carrying this so can he fire it which in your opinion at the start was yes. so then people like me come along and point out through clarifying 6-7 different sections of the rule book that it can't be done and therefor playing it based on the word "carrying" is an absolute rules abuse and should be pointed out as such, which is what 5-6 others actually said in the first place but nothing was consolidated into a solid post.

YMDC is for players to point out where something is right where something is wrong and where something is an absolute rules abuse.

and every word in the rule book is important but you have to read in-between the lines with gw at times as they are slowed as we all know.

to provide an alternative example as well an impy guard HW team "carries 2 lasguns but has a pintle mounted heavy weapon in most cases would you claim that you can fire the HW and both las guns on the grounds they are not carrying the heavy weapon no you wouldnt

Chris Lysander wrote:
@Gharron without seeing the actual warpsmith rules if he works like a TM then no as you'd have to surrender your right to shoot in order to repair a vehicle


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AG. wrote:
Hey Chris, thanks for taking the time to reply in a comprehensive manner. I can't help myself saying this though;

I'm happy to put the issue to bed, but you know, don't post in a thread about rules abuse if you don't like rules abuse. My opening paragraph is about how it isn't fair, isn't intended etc.

The point still stands that every word in the rulebook is just as important as every other, and ownership isn't defined. The definition in the dictionary doesn't really help us in this case.

But whatevs, we're cool baby.

the point still stands that games-workshop are slowed and post a new edition rule book that allows for new stuff but then forgets that the older stuff is there and doesn't clarify it nice and clearly which then causes people like your self to go well he aint carrying this so can he fire it which in your opinion at the start was yes. so then people like me come along and point out through clarifying 6-7 different sections of the rule book that it can't be done and therefor playing it based on the word "carrying" is an absolute rules abuse and should be pointed out as such, which is what 5-6 others actually said in the first place but nothing was consolidated into a solid post.

YMDC is for players to point out where something is right where something is wrong and where something is an absolute rules abuse.

and every word in the rule book is important but you have to read in-between the lines with gw at times as they are slowed as we all know.

to provide an alternative example as well an impy guard HW team "carries 2 lasguns but has a pintle mounted heavy weapon in most cases would you claim that you can fire the HW and both las guns on the grounds they are not carrying the heavy weapon no you wouldnt

Just going to point out some stuff here:
1) YMDC is for discussions of the RAW. While I don't agree with the point, calling it "rules abuse" is pointless, as this forum is about discussing what the RAW say, not whether or not they are fair.
2) Very few of your points had any relevance to the argument the OP was making.
3) Your HWT example is just plain wrong. They are a single infantry model with a heavy weapon (possibly a lasgun too but can't remember). The HWT can only ever fire one weapon (usually the heavy weapon), and they arent even artillery, so the example is both irrelevant and wrong.

Ya if the tech marine chooses to fire the thunder fire cannon he of coarse cannot fire his own weapons. The thunderer fire cannon does not auto fire.

The quad gun you need to give up firming your weapon to fire it. It's one or the other. It's really not hard to see this.

However if the cannon is destroyed the tech marine is not removed from play and can fire his own 2 weapons, or the quad gun not both.

Iirc the artillery rules only permit him to fire his artillery till its destroyed.