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.

Well, the question's in the title. The relevant rules are:

"...may take one of the following:
-Pintle Mounted Heavy Flamer......[REDACTED] points
-Pintle Mounted Multilaser...........[REDACTED] points

...may replace any of its multilasers with Lascannons .... [REDACTED] points each" emphasis mine.

Can you pay the points for the pintle multilaser, then invoke the "may replace any multilaser with a lascannon" option to make it a pintle lascannon?

In this case no.

The "pintle mounted multi-lazer" is not a "multi-lazer".




But even if you could, it would not be a pintle mounted lazcannon, it would just be a hull mounted one.

Can you explain your reasoning? And a pintle mounted Multilaser is no different from a co-axial Multilaser or Sponson mounted multilaser. Why couldn't you replace it if you can replace the other two?

So, I'm guessing his logic is that "Pintle mounted multi-lazer" is a different weapon name then "multi-lazer" much in the same way that a "hand flamer" is not a "flamer".

The second argument is, I'm guessing, is that "pintle mounted" is a weapon property akin to "twin-linked". If you replace a twin-linked heavy flamer with a flamestorm cannon, its not a twin-linked flamestorm cannon. Following this logic train replace a pintle mount multi-laser with a lascannon does not make it a pintle mounted lascannon.

Trouble with both these arguments is that "pintle mounted" is closer to fluff then rule. It describes how the weapon is attached to the hull. It provides no rule bonus or framework. The rules for vehicle weapons tell us the firing arc properties of the weapons is based on how they physically attached to the hull. Some may be in sponsons, some hull mounted and others pintle mounted. But even there not all sponson weapons have the same firing arc and so on and so forth. It all comes down to the range of motion the physical model is intended to have.

The question is really, can you upgrade a weapon bought as an upgrade with out specific permission to do so. This is not unlike the Dark Angles command squad debate from last year. When it comes down to it there is precedent in previous rules/codex/faqs that supports both sides of the argument based on two different but valid logical arguments.

There is no RAW clean an simple answer here.

The question is really, can you upgrade a weapon bought as an upgrade with out specific permission to do so.

The question is more, is there any rule specifically saying that you cannot, but the rule says "any" of its multilaser, which imho means the pintle mounted one can be switched, otherwise the rules would have said something akin to :
"...may replace any of its multilasers with Lascannons .... [REDACTED] points each (the optional pintle-mounted multilaser may not be replaced)"

Pintle-mounted multilasers are most definitely multilasers and can be replaced.

If you disagree, find me the profile in the weapons reference for a "Pintle-mounted Multilaser".

Better question, if you replace a pintle-mounted multilaser with a lascannon, is the lascannon pintle-mounted? I would argue no, but that creates a ton of actual modelling issues. How and where do you attach the lascannon? Does it become hull mounted somehow?

Unless otherwise stated I'd say it's mounted as the original weapon was, ergo "pintle-mounted" in that case.

Myliel wrote:
Unless otherwise stated I'd say it's mounted as the original weapon was, ergo "pintle-mounted" in that case.

I would agree with this too: The weapon is described in its attachment (Turret-mounted Autocanon) but you are only replacing the "type" (Replace Autocanon with twin-linked Lascanon).

I recall similar wording for the Baneblade in the Escalation book. You may replace Heavy Bolters with Heavy Flamers. I don't think the replacement changed the mounting type.

I would agree that swapping out weapon A and replacing it with weapon B, unless stated otherwise, is going to result in weapon B being mounted however weapon A was mounted.

But the question over the ability to purchase weapon A as an option, then use a second option to replace it is open for debate.