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.

It reads that any model in base contact of a quad gun can operate it. Is there any restrictions that a vehicle could not use it as a vehicle is indeed a model? This just came up in a conversation and can't deny it as I don't have my rulebook handy atm.

I don't see anything to counter that.

"I'll just park my devilfish on the roof of my bastion and have 2+ cover save with disruptor pods while i shoot the guad gun a BS of four." seems legit

Yes, vehicles can fire weapon emplacements. Whether or not they can fire the rest of their weapons is a topic for another thread.

Happyjew wrote:
Yes, vehicles can fire weapon emplacements. Whether .... topic for another thread.

HJ, would you actually *play* it like this?

A little RAI common sense, perhaps?

Or am I asking for the unlikely?

Rulebook doesn't say you can't. Also doesn't say I cannot hit you over the head with it when you suggest silly things!

I don't understand the objections. Short range wireless targeting? That's so out of the realm of possibility?

 Phototoxin wrote:
Rulebook doesn't say you can't. Also doesn't say I cannot hit you over the head with it when you suggest silly things!

However one's legal, whilst the other will have to put in jail for assault.

RAW it's legal

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Phototoxin wrote:
Rulebook doesn't say you can't. Also doesn't say I cannot hit you over the head with it when you suggest silly things!

However one's legal, whilst the other will have to put in jail for assault.

RAW it's legal

On page two of the BRB, under the Models & Units section, it defines a model as having your basic 9 characteristics (WS, BS, S, T, W, I, A, Ld, Sv). Then it says that vehicles are different and tells you to go look at another part of the book for vehicle information. This clearly defines models and vehicles as two separate things on the table. And since only models can fire a weapon emplacement a vehicle is not a model then, RAW and RAI, it is illegal for a vehicle to fire an emplacement.

That being said, can a Tau Drone on a Tau vehicle, where the Drone is physically touching the emplacement fire it? I would say 'yes' but only because it is a model and it is touching the emplacement. Not because it it embarked on the vehicle. Other armies just have to suffer from Tau OP.

Vehicles are models.

 Kwosge wrote:

On page two of the BRB, under the Models & Units section, it defines a model as having your basic 9 characteristics (WS, BS, S, T, W, I, A, Ld, Sv). Then it says that vehicles are different and tells you to go look at another part of the book for vehicle information. This clearly defines models and vehicles as two separate things on the table. And since only models can fire a weapon emplacement a vehicle is not a model then, RAW and RAI, it is illegal for a vehicle to fire an emplacement.

That being said, can a Tau Drone on a Tau vehicle, where the Drone is physically touching the emplacement fire it? I would say 'yes' but only because it is a model and it is touching the emplacement. Not because it it embarked on the vehicle. Other armies just have to suffer from Tau OP.

Page 3 describes Vehicles under the Model and Unit section and indicates that to represent differences in living things, it has different characteristics and rules.

It is still a model though.

Vehicles can operate Gun Emplacements, Tyranids still can't. Go GW!

Yup. 'Counter-Intuitive' is not the same thing as 'Against the Rules'.

I'd have to presume that the vehicle doesn't grow arms or something silly; rather one of the pilots peeks out and presses the big red 'fire' button.

Sounds RAW allowed. Be surprised if anyone actually tried to play it like this though.

 Testify wrote:
Sounds RAW allowed. Be surprised if anyone actually tried to play it like this though.

A walker that has lost its ranged weapon to damage result could conceivably operate a quad gun or one that is wants to kill a flyer

40k-noob wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Sounds RAW allowed. Be surprised if anyone actually tried to play it like this though.

A walker that has lost its ranged weapon to damage result could conceivably operate a quad gun or one that is wants to kill a flyer

I don't know, do walkers have opposable thumbs? I'll admit it's something of a grey area though.

Most vehicles cannot operate gun emplacements, as the firing model must be in base contact with the gun and most vehicles do not have bases. However, vehicles with bases may fire gun emplacements as any other model would.

 Kingsley wrote:
Most vehicles cannot operate gun emplacements, as the firing model must be in base contact with the gun and most vehicles do not have bases. However, vehicles with bases may fire gun emplacements as any other model would.

a base is not needed.

"for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull" P.71

I have no problems using my imagination to believe that the pilot or one of the other crew members (probably the gunner) disembarks and fires the weapon emplacement.

As for the actual rule. I see nothing preventing vehicles from firing the emplacement guns.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Tyranids still can't.

Was this FAQ'd? I really want to know if my mortal enemie's army just took a hit.

And while this is absolute sillyness I really cant come up with a legit argument against it. I smell a nasty tactic.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Tyranids still can't.

Was this FAQ'd? I really want to know if my mortal enemie's army just took a hit.

Yes, Tyranids can't fire both types of weapons.

"Q: Are Tyranid units inside buildings (i.e. the Bastion) subject to instinctive behaviour tests? Furthermore, are they able to manual fire emplaced weapons or weapon emplacements?
A: No to both questions."

Excelent. My doom scythe is safe for another day. That being said, do they really have anything that can deal with flyers?

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Excelent. My doom scythe is safe for another day. That being said, do they really have anything that can deal with flyers?

Vector Striking FMC's

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Excelent. My doom scythe is safe for another day. That being said, do they really have anything that can deal with flyers?

Pretty much just a Flyrant and Hive Guard on Snapshots.

also carnifexes with twin linked devourers.. 12 shots...means 2 hits and rerolling another 1.6ish.. so 3-4 hits and then depending on the armor of the flier it could be glanced to death conceivably

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/476631.page

Interesting thread that is linked to this debate.

I would say this is the dumbest thread ever, but I have read some really dumb threads before. Vehicles firing gun emplacements is probably an oversight considering the FAQ'd nids to not be able to do it. That said, I can't see this really having a major impact on play so I would say if you plan on doing this, mention it to your opponent before the game starts.

I still don't see why it's that stupid.

The strongest argument atm is that the model needs to be B2B in order to fire the weapon. The majority of vehicles do not use bases or use skimmer bases which are basically ignored, so i would say that the only vehicles able to fire weapon emplacements would be walkers. ( Imagine a dread hipshooting a quad gun! Would make for an interesting diorama ).

A base is not needed because for vehicles the hull is used instead of the base:

"for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull" P.71

So that argument does not work.