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.

Any rule that says 'his weapon' is suspect. A model firing it is using it as his weapon after all (instead of the one it was carrying).

The thing GW needs to clarify is whether it means only the weapons the model originally came with.

Actually, no. Since Gun Emplacement (e.g. Quadgun) doesn't benefit from the manually firing model's abilities or special rules, Telion shots should not be always be Precision Shots.

If he shoots an Emplaced Weapon like the Krak Storm Missile Launcher, then it depends on the wording of his rule.

 Shandara wrote:
Any rule that says 'his weapon' is suspect. A model firing it is using it as his weapon after all (instead of the one it was carrying).

The thing GW needs to clarify is whether it means only the weapons the model originally came with.

Instead of =\= Counts as.

 Shandara wrote:
Any rule that says 'his weapon' is suspect. A model firing it is using it as his weapon after all (instead of the one it was carrying).

The thing GW needs to clarify is whether it means only the weapons the model originally came with.

Apart from the rule stating you use it INSTEAD OF using his weapon. Meaning he isnt using it as HIS weapon. Due to the very clear rule stating otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Any rule that says 'his weapon' is suspect. A model firing it is using it as his weapon after all (instead of the one it was carrying).

The thing GW needs to clarify is whether it means only the weapons the model originally came with.

Apart from the rule stating you use it INSTEAD OF using his weapon. Meaning he isnt using it as HIS weapon. Due to the very clear rule stating otherwise.

And prove that any model is wielding "their" weapon and support it with rules. Last I checked I equip my model
with a weapon.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Any rule that says 'his weapon' is suspect. A model firing it is using it as his weapon after all (instead of the one it was carrying).

The thing GW needs to clarify is whether it means only the weapons the model originally came with.

Apart from the rule stating you use it INSTEAD OF using his weapon. Meaning he isnt using it as HIS weapon. Due to the very clear rule stating otherwise.

And prove that any model is wielding "their" weapon and support it with rules. Last I checked I equip my model
with a weapon.

Indeed, and all that amounts to is decoration if you don't wield it.

Fluff for get's hot, rules for poisoned, fluff for force, fluff for two-handed, "Strength" first sentence under Weapons on page 50, Wall of Death rule, witchblades text...

Ah, have NL on ignore, so hadnt seen that. Also means I wont respond to it, as it defeats the point of ignoring.

"his" weapon has a straightforward context, denoted in the rules for emplaced weapons. Ownership is pretty damn straightforward a concept that I am surprised needs explaining.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, have NL on ignore, so hadnt seen that. Also means I wont respond to it, as it defeats the point of ignoring.

"his" weapon has a straightforward context, denoted in the rules for emplaced weapons. Ownership is pretty damn straightforward a concept that I am surprised needs explaining.

Apparently it needs explaining to Nos as he seems to think that a guy carrying a heavy weapon and a guy operating a gun emplacement some how are demonstrating a different type of "ownership". So what if I model my Dark Reaper with a receipt for one BFG, is that proving ownership. Good idea, I will now ask for receipts from all Eldar opponents, proving the exarchs actually own their weapons.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, have NL on ignore, so hadnt seen that. Also means I wont respond to it, as it defeats the point of ignoring.

"his" weapon has a straightforward context, denoted in the rules for emplaced weapons. Ownership is pretty damn straightforward a concept that I am surprised needs explaining.

Apparently it needs explaining to Nos as he seems to think that a guy carrying a heavy weapon and a guy operating a gun emplacement some how are demonstrating a different type of "ownership". Somewhat if I model my Dark Reaper with a receipt for one BFG, is that proving ownership. Good idea, I will now ask for receipts from all Eldar opponents, proving the exarchs actually own their weapons.

Um. No.
If a model is equipped with a weapon and uses it, it's his.
If a weapon is found on the battlefield and a model moves up and shoots it, it's not his weapon but he was able to shoot it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, have NL on ignore, so hadnt seen that. Also means I wont respond to it, as it defeats the point of ignoring.

"his" weapon has a straightforward context, denoted in the rules for emplaced weapons. Ownership is pretty damn straightforward a concept that I am surprised needs explaining.

Apparently it needs explaining to Nos as he seems to think that a guy carrying a heavy weapon and a guy operating a gun emplacement some how are demonstrating a different type of "ownership". Somewhat if I model my Dark Reaper with a receipt for one BFG, is that proving ownership. Good idea, I will now ask for receipts from all Eldar opponents, proving the exarchs actually own their weapons.

Um. No.
If a model is equipped with a weapon and uses it, it's his.
If a weapon is found on the battlefield and a model moves up and shoots it, it's not his weapon but he was able to shoot it.

And that is in the rulebook on page?

NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, have NL on ignore, so hadnt seen that. Also means I wont respond to it, as it defeats the point of ignoring.

"his" weapon has a straightforward context, denoted in the rules for emplaced weapons. Ownership is pretty damn straightforward a concept that I am surprised needs explaining.

Apparently it needs explaining to Nos as he seems to think that a guy carrying a heavy weapon and a guy operating a gun emplacement some how are demonstrating a different type of "ownership". Somewhat if I model my Dark Reaper with a receipt for one BFG, is that proving ownership. Good idea, I will now ask for receipts from all Eldar opponents, proving the exarchs actually own their weapons.

Um. No.
If a model is equipped with a weapon and uses it, it's his.
If a weapon is found on the battlefield and a model moves up and shoots it, it's not his weapon but he was able to shoot it.

And that is in the rulebook on page?

Kevin949 wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Any rule that says 'his weapon' is suspect. A model firing it is using it as his weapon after all (instead of the one it was carrying).

The thing GW needs to clarify is whether it means only the weapons the model originally came with.

Apart from the rule stating you use it INSTEAD OF using his weapon. Meaning he isnt using it as HIS weapon. Due to the very clear rule stating otherwise.

And prove that any model is wielding "their" weapon and support it with rules. Last I checked I equip my model
with a weapon.

Indeed, and all that amounts to is decoration if you don't wield it.

Fluff for get's hot, rules for poisoned, fluff for force, fluff for two-handed, "Strength" first sentence under Weapons on page 50, Wall of Death rule, witchblades text...

Lol sooo need a picture of a converted Dark Repear model holding a receipt for a Icarus Lascannon.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, have NL on ignore, so hadnt seen that. Also means I wont respond to it, as it defeats the point of ignoring.

"his" weapon has a straightforward context, denoted in the rules for emplaced weapons. Ownership is pretty damn straightforward a concept that I am surprised needs explaining.

Apparently it needs explaining to Nos as he seems to think that a guy carrying a heavy weapon and a guy operating a gun emplacement some how are demonstrating a different type of "ownership". Somewhat if I model my Dark Reaper with a receipt for one BFG, is that proving ownership. Good idea, I will now ask for receipts from all Eldar opponents, proving the exarchs actually own their weapons.

Um. No.
If a model is equipped with a weapon and uses it, it's his.
If a weapon is found on the battlefield and a model moves up and shoots it, it's not his weapon but he was able to shoot it.

And that is in the rulebook on page?

Considering either side can move up to the gun and fire it, it doesn't belong to anyone. The fact the gun is it's own model with stats and all that, it's not "wielded" or "equipped", it's simply fired. Don't think there's anything that says the words you're looking for, but it's pretty much there in the collaboration of the rules from various sections.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, have NL on ignore, so hadnt seen that. Also means I wont respond to it, as it defeats the point of ignoring.

"his" weapon has a straightforward context, denoted in the rules for emplaced weapons. Ownership is pretty damn straightforward a concept that I am surprised needs explaining.

Apparently it needs explaining to Nos as he seems to think that a guy carrying a heavy weapon and a guy operating a gun emplacement some how are demonstrating a different type of "ownership". Somewhat if I model my Dark Reaper with a receipt for one BFG, is that proving ownership. Good idea, I will now ask for receipts from all Eldar opponents, proving the exarchs actually own their weapons.

Um. No.
If a model is equipped with a weapon and uses it, it's his.
If a weapon is found on the battlefield and a model moves up and shoots it, it's not his weapon but he was able to shoot it.

And that is in the rulebook on page?

Considering either side can move up to the gun and fire it, it doesn't belong to anyone. The fact the gun is it's own model with stats and all that, it's not "wielded" or "equipped", it's simply fired. Don't think there's anything that says the words you're looking for, but it's pretty much there in the collaboration of the rules from various sections.

Apparently the linguistic meaning of "ownership" missed a poster by a mile there.

Wargear you start the game equipped with is "yours". Weapons you find on the battlefield are not yours - especially when someone else can simply use them.

Still surprised this needs explaining, really. It's a fairly straightforward concept in English.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
Actually re-reading the rules for Gun Emplacements, it says nothing about using any special rules the model has, only that it follows the normal rules for Shooting. The whole special rule thing only happens when manually firing emplaced weapons.

Which is actually what he was talking about [Emplaced Weapons].


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

St. Jebus wrote:
I would say yes - the Fast Shot rule is clearly on the model, and not on, say, the Exarch's Reaper, and the emplaced weapons rule says "All relevent special rules from the gun and the model."

It's not a special rule though, it's a power.

Yeah no. Exarch powers are special rules. Destructor is a (psychic) power.

Ok, does he have to make a roll or anything for this "special rule power" to be effective?

How about a model under the effects of guide? Do they get a reroll/s if using an Icarus Laser cannon or heavy bolter? For that mater What about if the Exarch uses Crackshot?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, have NL on ignore, so hadnt seen that. Also means I wont respond to it, as it defeats the point of ignoring.

"his" weapon has a straightforward context, denoted in the rules for emplaced weapons. Ownership is pretty damn straightforward a concept that I am surprised needs explaining.

Except in the case you interpret both as ownership where as I interpret the Exarch rule as the weapon he is presently using. You infer ownership I infer use. This is the root of the issue. As the rule for Emplaced weapons state you may use any special rules and Fastshot is a special rule there is further implication in our favour.

I ask again for someone to offer another example where a special rule is disallowed. Anyone?

 Bausk wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
Actually re-reading the rules for Gun Emplacements, it says nothing about using any special rules the model has, only that it follows the normal rules for Shooting. The whole special rule thing only happens when manually firing emplaced weapons.

Which is actually what he was talking about [Emplaced Weapons].


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

St. Jebus wrote:
I would say yes - the Fast Shot rule is clearly on the model, and not on, say, the Exarch's Reaper, and the emplaced weapons rule says "All relevent special rules from the gun and the model."

It's not a special rule though, it's a power.

Yeah no. Exarch powers are special rules. Destructor is a (psychic) power.

Ok, does he have to make a roll or anything for this "special rule power" to be effective?

How about a model under the effects of guide? Do they get a reroll/s if using an Icarus Laser cannon or heavy bolter? For that mater What about if the Exarch uses Crackshot?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, have NL on ignore, so hadnt seen that. Also means I wont respond to it, as it defeats the point of ignoring.

"his" weapon has a straightforward context, denoted in the rules for emplaced weapons. Ownership is pretty damn straightforward a concept that I am surprised needs explaining.

Except in the case you interpret both as ownership where as I interpret the Exarch rule as the weapon he is presently using. You infer ownership I infer use. This is the root of the issue. As the rule for Emplaced weapons state you may use any special rules and Fastshot is a special rule there is further implication in our favour.

I ask again for someone to offer another example where a special rule is disallowed. Anyone?

Sorry, I don't know all the wording for those rules so I can't answer you, plus it's not really the topic at this point.

As for your second portion...you can interpret it however you want, but it's not correct. We're not "inferring" ownership, it's pretty plainly spelled out. And what are you talking about "an example where a special rule is disallowed"? Just, any old example?

All attacks buy Lelith ignore armor saves. If she uses the quad gun/Icarus Lascannon......... Everbody says it does not work for her grenades, so......

Murky is as murky does, GW really needs to learn how to wright it's rules better.

 Bausk wrote:


Except in the case you interpret both as ownership where as I interpret the Exarch rule as the weapon he is presently using. You infer ownership I infer use. This is the root of the issue. As the rule for Emplaced weapons state you may use any special rules and Fastshot is a special rule there is further implication in our favour.

I ask again for someone to offer another example where a special rule is disallowed. Anyone?

It is not inferred, at all. IT is very plainly stated that you use the weapon instead of "his" weapon. You are told his special rule only works on "his" weapons. An emplaced weapon is defined as something other than "his" weapon

So this IS the root of the issue - you are told special rules ARE allowed, however the special rule itself states it is NOT allowed to be used on anything other than "his" weapons, and emplaced weapons define themselves as being other than their weapon

Oh, and necron - love your sarcasm, really follows rule 1. Totally.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
All attacks buy Lelith ignore armor saves. If she uses the quad gun/Icarus Lascannon......... Everbody says it does not work for her grenades, so......

People who don't say Lelith's rule works on grenades are wrong, though.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
All attacks buy Lelith ignore armor saves. If she uses the quad gun/Icarus Lascannon......... Everbody says it does not work for her grenades, so......

Murky is as murky does, GW really needs to learn how to wright it's rules better.

RAW it works for every attack she makes. Its a special rule so I don't see why it wont carry over to an emplaced weapon. Painful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


Except in the case you interpret both as ownership where as I interpret the Exarch rule as the weapon he is presently using. You infer ownership I infer use. This is the root of the issue. As the rule for Emplaced weapons state you may use any special rules and Fastshot is a special rule there is further implication in our favour.

I ask again for someone to offer another example where a special rule is disallowed. Anyone?

It is not inferred, at all. IT is very plainly stated that you use the weapon instead of "his" weapon. You are told his special rule only works on "his" weapons. An emplaced weapon is defined as something other than "his" weapon

So this IS the root of the issue - you are told special rules ARE allowed, however the special rule itself states it is NOT allowed to be used on anything other than "his" weapons, and emplaced weapons define themselves as being other than their weapon

Oh, and necron - love your sarcasm, really follows rule 1. Totally.

Im not refuting that he is using the emplaced weapon instead of his weapon (owned) as that is obvious. However I clearly stated that the Exarchs rule, 'He may add +1 to the number of shots fired by his weapon', is is being inferred as both owned and weapon he is presently using. As it is a special rule that does not explicitly state weapon by name or profile I interpret it as being able to be used with any weapon he happens to fire in the shooting phase. Again it comes down to merits IMO as its not clearly one or the other so RAW is grey at best. However the merit I see for it being a yes is, as I previously stated, the Exarchs rule does not state that it exclusivly applies to the weapons he has avilable in his weapon list. Another point in his favour is psychic shooting attacks (AKA Witchfire) are used instead of their normal weapon (page 69 BRB) Points in favour of the implication being owned weapons only, an ambiguous reference to 'his weapon'. Thats all.

RAW it is not grey. "his" is ownership, not what he is currently using. There is no possible contextual clause in that statement that coudl allow you to interpret is present tense "using" of a weapon, itr is strictly ownership.

Not ambiuguos, crystal clear. You use an emplaced weapon INSTEAD OF HIS weapon. It cannot therefore BE his weapon

Address the rules, dont hand wave "grey at best"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
RAW it is not grey. "his" is ownership, not what he is currently using. There is no possible contextual clause in that statement that coudl allow you to interpret is present tense "using" of a weapon, itr is strictly ownership.

Not ambiuguos, crystal clear. You use an emplaced weapon INSTEAD OF HIS weapon. It cannot therefore BE his weapon

Address the rules, dont hand wave "grey at best"

Again, Im not disputing the rule for emplaced weapon refers to his as in owned. The exarchs rule/s is/are the one/s I'm saying does not refer to an owned weapon for the reasons above (you know where I stated this already and explained it) but rather the weapon he is using in that given shooting phase. It's not RAW either way as the term 'his' in the exarchs rule is subjective. But It is how I'd play it as there are more definitive points for him being able to use the rules than against it.

I've made it clear twice now that the emplaced weapon rule is a RAW and my interpretation of the Exarchs rule is how I would play it with the emplaced weapon rule. Not that I believe that this is the RAW. Its an old rule that has an older more loose description than a modern codex would have. And for that reason I would be happy to play it either way.

No, again I pointed out that there is no context, whatsoever, that indicates that it is the weapon in use, rather than ownership, that the Exarch power is referring to.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, again I pointed out that there is no context, whatsoever, that indicates that it is the weapon in use, rather than ownership, that the Exarch power is referring to.

And there is no indication that the exarchs rule means ownership rather than the weapon in use either. I said both variations were true and false because the rule is subjective and old. As such it comes down to HYWPI not RAW as the RAW is subjective. Honestly are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Both positions have been expressed clearly and this has already gone circular. Locking.