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.

PanzerLeader wrote:
Please define how many weapons a vehicle can shoot.

There is no limit, it can shoot an infinite amount of weapons.
There is limit on the weapons themselves, in that they can only shoot once.
And only a weapon it's listed as having can be used,
But there is no limit on the number it can fire.

So you're trying to argue a clever misinterpretation of the word "its".

When they have multiple weapons, "one of its" is no problem, and when it has NO weapons, "one of its" is no problem, but when it has a single one, "one of its" takes it up because "it" is the ONLY weapon it has.

Which holds about as much weight as the "look these wraith guard have no eyes, so we can't draw TLOS from them which means they can never make shooting attacks."

I'm tempted at this point to say sure you've found a weird error in the rules, like many have before. You're using "its" too literally to cause an unreasonable exception in this one specific case, which was caused by an odd jive between the rules for vector strikes, which apply to FMCs, and the rules for fliers/vehicles firing their weapons when attempting to make the heldrake combine the abilities of both. Kudos, GW can't write rules. In trying to make a vehicle behave like a monstrous creature, they screwed up. Go figure, they've done it before (apoc v1 said GMCs could tank shock like vehicles counting as AV 14, but then didn't say how you were supposed to resolve damage).

Now let's ignore this troll and move on VSing and firing with our heldrakes, as that's how it was supposed to be played.

PanzerLeader wrote:
@ Abandon: I can agree with you that counts as firing does not equal count as firing equipped weapon. A hive tyrant could have a witch fire power and two devourers. On any given turn, the tyrant could shoot two devourers, shoot the witch fire and a single devourers or do a VS and use any one of the three possible shooting attacks.

@ McNinja: Please define how many weapons a vehicle can shoot. My base assertion here is that a vehicle can only shoot a total number equal to the number and type it is equipped with, I.e. "all" it's weapons per the base vehicle rules. If you have only one weapon and count as firing one weapon, then you have reached the base line cap of "all".

@ Rigeld: so I've made nuanced RAW/RAI arguments and you have not addressed any specific points in your responses. Please be constructive in the discussion or stop posting.

The problem is that you're assuming that when you count as firing one weapon, it means that you're replacing the one weapon you have on the vehicle with the VS. That is simply an assumption that you're making that is unfounded from a rules perspective. When you count as firing a weapon, that's simply it. You count as if you fired a weapon, even though you didn't. The rule says "count as firing A weapon" not "count as firing one of your weapons." If the rule read as the latter, your assertion would be correct. Alas, it does not.

You're simply firing a weapon. You have a weapon, then you have an ability that says you count as firing a weapon. That's a total of two.

He will still say that because you count as firing "A" weapon, and you only HAVE one weapon, it MUST be THAT weapon.
"You count as having fired a weapon, so which one? It only has one"

"Some weapon it doesn't have"

"Now how could you count as firing a weapon you don't have?" Would be his argument. He's saying since that isn't possible, then it must be the single gun that you're forced to elect. However in the case of a flying MC without a weapon or a vehicle using a searchlight when they are weapon less, both create the same situation where they count as having fired a nonexistent weapon, so why not the heldrake?

 Spellbound wrote:
He will still say that because you count as firing "A" weapon, and you only HAVE one weapon, it MUST be THAT weapon.
"You count as having fired a weapon, so which one? It only has one"

"Some weapon it doesn't have"

"Now how could you count as firing a weapon you don't have?" Would be his argument. He's saying since that isn't possible, then it must be the single gun that you're forced to elect. However in the case of a flying MC without a weapon or a vehicle using a searchlight when they are weapon less, both create the same situation where they count as having fired a nonexistent weapon, so why not the heldrake?

Perhaps, but then I'd say that the Vector Strike is the "weapon" you're firing. You don't count as firing a weapon you have, you count as firing the vector strike. It is, in effect, a weapon. You count as firing a weapon. You aren't actually firing a weapon, you simply count as if you had fired one.

Oh don't get me wrong it's obvious to me you should be able to do both.

I was simply stating how his argument is attempting to use the grammar of the rule to limit the heldrake's usefulness.

PanzerLeader wrote:
@ Abandon: I can agree with you that counts as firing does not equal count as firing equipped weapon. A hive tyrant could have a witch fire power and two devourers. On any given turn, the tyrant could shoot two devourers, shoot the witch fire and a single devourers or do a VS and use any one of the three possible shooting attacks.

so we can agree here-
counts as firing a weapon ≠ counts as firing an equipped weapon

what about-
counts as having fired one weapon ≠ counts as having fired one equipped weapon

For arguments sake, let us assume the Tyrant was equipped with only one devourer.
-Can the HT VS and then fire it's one equiped weapon?
-Can the HT VS and then use a witchfire?
-Can the HT use a witchfire and fire the devourer?


As far as the number of weapons the turkey can fire

1. A flyer is permitted to fire up to four weapons at full BS
2. The turkey has one ranged weapon which means it is permitted to fire one weapon

I think you are trying to use #2 to counter #1 but that does not work out. #2 is a permission, not a denial. The Helldrake retains full permission on both points as neither counteract the other.

*Forgive me if I've misunderstood your argument.

Can I see a page and paragraph reference for the following "Rule:"
The number of weapons a model is carrying equals the maximum number of weapons it can fire.

JinxDragon wrote:
Can I see a page and paragraph reference for the following "Rule:"
The number of weapons a model is carrying equals the maximum number of weapons it can fire.

That's not a rule, it's a given.

JinxDragon wrote:
Can I see a page and paragraph reference for the following "Rule:"
The number of weapons a model is carrying equals the maximum number of weapons it can fire.

There is no such rule otherwise psykers would have trouble shooting more weapons than they carry.

A given?! - So your claiming it is a fundamental fact that could never be played any other way or else the rules would break on a level far deeper then Rules as Written?

JinxDragon wrote:
A given?! - So your claiming it is a fundamental fact that could never be played any other way or else the rules would break on a level far deeper then Rules as Written?

Of course.

Unless you have a specific allowance to use an ability that counts as firing a weapon.

Like Vector Strike.

I, personally, find this to be a complete load of crap... to be blunt.
We are talking about nothing more then a stated maximum number. Until an action has exceed this stated maximum no rule has been broken, as the fundamental concept here is that X occurs once Y is greater then Z. There is no requirement within the concept of a maximum for that number to be theoretically reachable, for the rule is only broken if that maximum number is exceeded. In fact, not being able to exceed the maximum is often preferred because it is a 'safe state,' as Maximum numbers often have consequences when broken.

As the inability to reach a stated maximum does not break the concept of maximum numbers there is no requirement to lower this number to one that can be theoretically achieved.

Having just explaining what a real fundamental looks like, I would like to bring your attention back to the first word in the first bold section right at the beginning. Maximum numbers are always stated somewhere, they required us to reference some chart or calculate what they will be with some equation. Because the Rule as Written concept of Maximum Numbers requires the book to tell us what they are, we do not require some sort of 'unspoken' concept and nothing breaks when this unspoken concept is ignored. Psykers without weapons, Vector Striking models without weapons and a small list of other cases are special for one reason: They have a special rule that allows them to count as having fired more weapons then they physically possess.

Unless you think models without weapons can not run?

JinxDragon wrote:
I, personally, find this to be a complete load of crap... to be blunt.
We are talking about nothing more then a stated maximum number. Until an action has exceed this stated maximum no rule has been broken, as the fundamental concept here is that X occurs once Y is greater then Z. There is no requirement within the concept of a maximum for that number to be theoretically reachable, for the rule is only broken if that maximum number is exceeded. In fact, not being able to exceed the maximum is often preferred because it is a 'safe state,' as Maximum numbers often have consequences when broken.

As the inability to reach a stated maximum does not break the concept of maximum numbers there is no requirement to lower this number to one that can be theoretically achieved.

With explaining what a real fundamental looks like, I would like to bring your attention back to the first word in the first bold section right at the beginning. Maximum numbers are always stated somewhere, they required us to reference some chart or calculate what they will be with some equation. Because the Rule as Written concept of Maximum Numbers requires the book to tell us what they are, we do not require some sort of 'unspoken' concept and nothing breaks when this unspoken concept is ignored. Psykers without weapons, Vector Striking models without weapons and a small list of other cases are special for one reason: They have a special rule that allows them to count as having fired more weapons then they physically possess.

Unless you think models without weapons can not run?

Sorry, this is what happens when I read read things wrong. You are correct.

A nuanced RAW/RAI argument? No, you need to be clear - per the tenets - what you're arguing.
Flyers have permission to fire 4 weapons at full BS. Find the denial of that permission for a Heldrake that has used Vector Strike. Yore asserting it exists and yet have failed to actually prove it. I haven't had to address an argument you've made because you've utterly failed to cite rules support for your statements.

You've even stated yourself that your argument requires you to make an assumption without rules support.

If you're arguing intent say so and I'll ignore this thread. As long as you're arguing RAW and not supporting your statements in any way I'll continue to post constructively.

@ Jinx: here is the heart of the problem as this discussion evolved: the rule book does not define the maximum number of weapons a vehicle can shoot. The closest it gives to a definition is the word "all." So you can use the logic applied by Grendel, in which case the limit is effectively infinite and the limitations are found by the weapons only being used.

The other interpretation of "all" is the one I offer that "all" equals the number of weapons found in the respective vehicles rule book entry. Depending on which you favor then defines how you interpret "counts as." I'll concede Grendel's point is the other logical conclusion.

@ Rigeld: I've already proven that the 4 weapons at BS is irrelevant. A flyer with 5 weapons could by RAW vector strike and still shoot four weapons at full BS. You've just ignored all my citations from the basic vehicle rules relating to this. All that matters is how you interpret how many weapons a vehicle can shoot based off how you define the word "all."

Panzer - no, you're not making a nuanced argument. You're making a bad one, as you have made up rules that don't exist.

A heldrake can fire up to four weapons when zooming. Proven. I have fired one weapon, so can still fire three. Proven. Pi have not fire the flamer, so can fire the flamer. Proven,

Research the other threads, you are wrong. That's it.

Ok, here is the easiest way to explain why you can:

VS places a status on your Model: This model has shot a weapon.

VS does NOT change the status of any equipped weapons: Baleflamer has not been shot this turn.

When you reach the Shooting phase, you are burdened by VS, but can still shoot any other weapon you have within the Rules.


The issue you are having Panzer, is that technically yes: this is an additional "imaginary" VS weapon and you could say the Helldrake is equipped with 2 weapons, but this is not necessary. One normal weapon, and One Special Rule.
But it's not an imaginary weapon, it's a Special Rule: Vector Strike, which puts a restriction on your shooting phase, not a restriction on any weapon you are equipped with.

I understand where your coming from Panzer based on the wording it's.
However I disagree, if you note the MC weapon allowance is worded in a simular grammatical way page48 ( uses ' their weapons'), and then note that a Witchfire also counts as fiering a weapon you arrive at the point where your interpretation would not allow the MC to use a witchfire and shoot its one weapon if it was only equipped with one weapon.

Since we pretty much know this is not the case, the 'it's weapons' can not be a limitation set by how many it is actually taking.

' it's ' is actually redundant, or when calculating how many weapons we should count powers and such things as VS as 'weapons' also. Bad choice of wording in the BRB

Wouldn't be the first time that GW did a poor job to write a rule after all.

But bottom line, the Drake VS in the move phase, and Scorch in the Shooting phase.

PanzerLeader wrote:
I've already proven that the 4 weapons at BS is irrelevant. A flyer with 5 weapons could by RAW vector strike and still shoot four weapons at full BS.

No it could not. The VS counts as firing a weapon in that models following shooting phase. You cannot choose to snap fire a weapon so when a model with 5+ weapons fires them all the 1st 4 weapons must be fired at full BS. The vector stike will not only count as a weapon that has been fired it will also count as the 1st weapon fired in the shooting phase leaving only 3 more opportunities to fire at full BS with the models 5+ weapons.

PanzerLeader wrote:
@ Rigeld: I've already proven that the 4 weapons at BS is irrelevant. A flyer with 5 weapons could by RAW vector strike and still shoot four weapons at full BS. You've just ignored all my citations from the basic vehicle rules relating to this. All that matters is how you interpret how many weapons a vehicle can shoot based off how you define the word "all."

No, you havent proven that because it's an incorrect statement. As DJ said you can never choose to snap fire so the VS must be one of the 4 full BS shots.

I'm ignoring nothing. You've cited no rules that actually support your assumption - indeed you admitted that for your assumption to be true you have to make a leap. When that leap is unsupported by rules you cannot claim RAW.
Please stop claiming your argument is RAW.

Edit: oh, and I still don't see the denial of permission to fire the Flamer. Any chance you could cite it? Or are you going to pretend I'm ignoring another citation from you and that nothing I say has merit when in fact it's directly relevant. Since this issue is so obvious I'm sure you can cite support. If you've already cited the denial somewhere just link me to the post or quote it please. I must have missed it the first time.

So just to make sure I understand: a flyer has 5 weapons and VS. After Vector Striking, it can shoot 3 at full BS and snap shoot two. It cannot fire the first at full BS because it "counts as" firing one, but may still fire all it's equipped weapons because "counts as" doesn't equal "replace." The basic vehicle rules that use the word "all" are descriptive of the number it could fire at full BS rather than a limitation on the maximum it could fire. There is no defined maximum number of weapons a vehicle can shoot, giving it an effective limit of infinity because it is undefined.

PanzerLeader wrote:
So just to make sure I understand: a flyer has 5 weapons and VS. After Vector Striking, it can shoot 3 at full BS and snap shoot two. It cannot fire the first at full BS because it "counts as" firing one, but may still fire all it's equipped weapons because "counts as" doesn't equal "replace." The basic vehicle rules that use the word "all" are descriptive of the number it could fire at full BS rather than a limitation on the maximum it could fire. There is no defined maximum number of weapons a vehicle can shoot, giving it an effective limit of infinity because it is undefined.

Yes. Those are the actual rules.

All this confusion could be avoided by not miswording the rules in the first place.

Nowhere does it say under Vector Strike the word "it's" it simple counts as having fired one weapon. Not it's weapon just a weapon.

So since it counts as having fired one weapon, and it can fire 4 weapons, and it has a weapon it hasn't fired. It can then fire that weapon in addition to vector strike.

I do agree with if a flyer vector strikes it counts as firing one weapon and can then only fire up to 3 additional weapons.

Wagguy80 wrote:
All this confusion could be avoided by not miswording the rules in the first place.

Nowhere does it say under Vector Strike the word "it's" it simple counts as having fired one weapon. Not it's weapon just a weapon.

So since it counts as having fired one weapon, and it can fire 4 weapons, and it has a weapon it hasn't fired. It can then fire that weapon in addition to vector strike.

I do agree with if a flyer vector strikes it counts as firing one weapon and can then only fire up to 3 additional weapons.

'its' which is being discussed comes under the vehicle rules not VS Rules, no one is miss wording 'it's'. This interpretation actually has little to do with VS, and much to do with the wording of how many weapons a unit type can fire.

But I'm not sure about infinite, if it is not defined a unit can only fire one weapon, the rules here are quite bad, rules as written suggest the vehicle can fire as many weapons as it has, which if one would be one, however as above with the MC example I don't think this was intended to come across that way.