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.

Is it possible for an opponent to use another opponent's quad gun from behind the ADL if there are no other models in base contact with it? I tried doing a search on here and could not pull up any results. Google was mildly helpful leaning toward being able to use it. Other than causing sore feelings, is there anything else that prevents this? Thanks for any guidance/input!

strengthofthedragon2 wrote:
Is it possible for an opponent to use another opponent's quad gun from behind the ADL if there are no other models in base contact with it? I tried doing a search on here and could not pull up any results. Google was mildly helpful leaning toward being able to use it. Other than causing sore feelings, is there anything else that prevents this? Thanks for any guidance/input!

Even if there is another model in BtB with it you both should be able to use it. In your respective shooting phases/shooting at reserves

Do it why not? if your opponent is a noob and leaves it for you then he deserves that.

As far as i know if you are btb with it and they are not then fire away.

Sadly quad kinda sucks :( if you stole the icarus lsc you can lay down some serious hurt.

Yeah the Quad kinda sucks buts it better then a bolter. give er the rules say you gotta be in BtB with it. so you shoot it during your turn they shoot it during their turn.
Sharing is caring

 cowpow16 wrote:
Do it why not? if your opponent is a noob and leaves it for you then he deserves that.

As far as i know if you are btb with it and they are not then fire away.

Sadly quad kinda sucks :( if you stole the icarus lsc you can lay down some serious hurt.

>Calls someone a noob
>Says the quad gun sucks

 Testify wrote:

 cowpow16 wrote:
Do it why not? if your opponent is a noob and leaves it for you then he deserves that.

As far as i know if you are btb with it and they are not then fire away.

Sadly quad kinda sucks :( if you stole the icarus lsc you can lay down some serious hurt.

>Calls someone a noob
>Says the quad gun sucks

Mainly the second one that bothers me though >.<

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

strengthofthedragon2 wrote:
Is it possible for an opponent to use another opponent's quad gun from behind the ADL if there are no other models in base contact with it? I tried doing a search on here and could not pull up any results. Google was mildly helpful leaning toward being able to use it. Other than causing sore feelings, is there anything else that prevents this? Thanks for any guidance/input!

Even if there is another model in BtB with it you both should be able to use it. In your respective shooting phases/shooting at reserves

This is true. Of course there are few disclaimers:

Model cannot use the quad-gun unless it is actually BTB with it, meaning if the quad gun is physically behind the ADL, opponent cannot just move model in base contact with the Defence Line section in front of the quad gun and then use the quad gun (barricade/wall/defence line special rules about base contact only apply for charge moves). Generally he needs to move over the defence line to get in base contact.

Other restricting issue is that the opponent must stay at least 1" away from your models, and vice versa, meaning that it is pretty easy to stop this from happening if you have the gun manned.

Remember also that it's a Heavy weapon, so if you move up into contact with it and fire that same turn, you'll be firing Snap Shots.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Remember also that it's a Heavy weapon, so if you move up into contact with it and fire that same turn, you'll be firing Snap Shots.

Unless the model that moved into contact with it has relentless.
Queue scout bikers.

-Matt

So I outflank my wolf priest with a GH squad that has an attached WG terminator and if I get the TDA model into b2b with the quad gun I can splatter some squad with the quad gun?
Good to hear.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
So I outflank my wolf priest with a GH squad that has an attached WG terminator and if I get the TDA model into b2b with the quad gun I can splatter some squad with the quad gun?
Good to hear.

yep and if they deep strike some models to move them off it you can shoot them as well (incept is lovely rule) ...

... Of course the question then is can the enemy shoot then quad gun that turn.

You also still have to keep 1" away from all enemy models, so you can keep your quadgun safe by packing a squad around it.

Thanks everyone! This came up in a game where I used some Ork storm boyz with Zagstruk to assault and suck a unit of necron immortals off of the quad gun and had battle wagons full of boyz that passed the difficult terrain test with enough inches to get over the line and move into base with the quad gun... With intent of shoosting me some doom scythes... Just trying to figure out if using it that way was legal/acceptable or a TFG move.

until someone drops a Barrage plate followed by Some Nators

I will say that if there was still a model in base contact, I would not have tried it... Whether it is fair or not, someone paid the points and if they are using/manning it then it is off limits in my mind... however, if it is not, I think it falls into the "battle field debris" area of the BRB and is open for anyone to use...

My major concern with this is that if an opponent is allowed to fire my gun emplacement then I should be able to fire at my own gun emplacement/assault it if I choose to do so. Allowing an opponent to fire the weapon and denying me the ability to destroy the weapon because it is 'friendly' means an opponent could overrun the emplacement and 'lol' as they had a firing platform that effectively could not be taken out.

Also, if it can be shot and assaulted then why would anyone argue that it is an enemy model? Seems like if it can be shot and assault like an enemy unit...it is an enemy unit...

I'd say that the emplacement is treated as a friendly model and as such cannot be manned by an opponent unless a specific power or something of that nature states otherwise.

 Jstncloud wrote:
My major concern with this is that if an opponent is allowed to fire my gun emplacement then I should be able to fire at my own gun emplacement/assault it if I choose to do so. Allowing an opponent to fire the weapon and denying me the ability to destroy the weapon because it is 'friendly' means an opponent could overrun the emplacement and 'lol' as they had a firing platform that effectively could not be taken out.

I'd say that the emplacement is treated as a friendly model and as such cannot be manned by an opponent unless a specific power or something of that nature states otherwise.

It's not a friendly model IIRC, and the rules allow you to assault/shoot at it if you wish.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Jstncloud wrote:
My major concern with this is that if an opponent is allowed to fire my gun emplacement then I should be able to fire at my own gun emplacement/assault it if I choose to do so. Allowing an opponent to fire the weapon and denying me the ability to destroy the weapon because it is 'friendly' means an opponent could overrun the emplacement and 'lol' as they had a firing platform that effectively could not be taken out.

I'd say that the emplacement is treated as a friendly model and as such cannot be manned by an opponent unless a specific power or something of that nature states otherwise.

It's not a friendly model IIRC, and the rules allow you to assault/shoot at it if you wish.

I would like to see a FAQ for this, because if this is the case what is to stop me from just destroying my emplacement to get first blood? The rules for first blood just state the removal of a unit. (Page 122, The first unit of any kind.)

I realize that is a stretch, but if we are going to allow someone to fire emplacements that are not their own then why can we not skew the rules further to include first blood.

Also, any chance there is a page number that states it is not a friendly unit? If I recall there is no 'neutral' type of unit. You are allowed to fire and assault 'enemy' units, if I am allowed to assault or fire upon the emplacement then it must also be friendly and enemy in classification at the same time. If there is a page in the rule book I missed I'll gladly give it a look.

The opposing side gains a victory point for First Blood.
What is the opposing side to a neutral unit?

 Jstncloud wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Jstncloud wrote:
My major concern with this is that if an opponent is allowed to fire my gun emplacement then I should be able to fire at my own gun emplacement/assault it if I choose to do so. Allowing an opponent to fire the weapon and denying me the ability to destroy the weapon because it is 'friendly' means an opponent could overrun the emplacement and 'lol' as they had a firing platform that effectively could not be taken out.

I'd say that the emplacement is treated as a friendly model and as such cannot be manned by an opponent unless a specific power or something of that nature states otherwise.

It's not a friendly model IIRC, and the rules allow you to assault/shoot at it if you wish.

I would like to see a FAQ for this, because if this is the case what is to stop me from just destroying my emplacement to get first blood? The rules for first blood just state the removal of a unit. (Page 122, The first unit of any kind.)

I realize that is a stretch, but if we are going to allow someone to fire emplacements that are not their own then why can we not skew the rules further to include first blood.

Also, any chance there is a page number that states it is not a friendly unit? If I recall there is no 'neutral' type of unit. You are allowed to fire and assault 'enemy' units, if I am allowed to assault or fire upon the emplacement then it must also be friendly and enemy in classification at the same time. If there is a page in the rule book I missed I'll gladly give it a look.

It's neutral no one gets first blood. However First blood is done with as a unit was destroyed

Check out pg 105 IIRC that gives you permission to shoot/assault it ( from memory)

Page 105, it's not a enemy unit, but you are given permission to assault/shoot if.

Of course the counter argument to this is that it is not a unit, it is terrain (specifically battlefield debris) and as such destroying it is the same as destroying terrain (when possible, see Apocalypse and Cities of Death I think).

Right; it's terrain, not a unit, so killing it doesn't earn First Blood or a VP in Purge the Alien. It's not friendly or enemy to anyone, and it's the specific rules for that type of terrain which grant the ability for anyone to shoot or assault it.

I assaulted a min grey hunter squad that was manning a quad gun with my dreadknight. Wiped them. Then consolidated onto the gun and was able to fire it at his allied stormtalon on interceptor when it came in from reserves. I only knocked off a HP, but it was still awesome!
I know, cool story, right? The moral of the story is that the judge in the tournament allowed this as he couldn't find anything to prevent me from doing it. Also, it was awesome. Did I mention that?

So is the consensus that as long as enemy models are not in base with the gun it is free game? I don't know how to set up a vote on a thread...


Edit-- Just figured it out...

With no reasonable poll reaponse available, it is entirely possible to steal a quad-gun. If it is unmanned, it is up for grabs.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
With no reasonable poll reaponse available, it is entirely possible to steal a quad-gun. If it is unmanned, it is up for grabs.

It is my first poll... I tried to represent different views... Is there another response option that needs added? Thanks!

I would just like to point out that, at least in the United States, stealing is illegal. If you are going to steal our opponents Quad-gun, shame on you.

In all seriousness though the only restrictions is that you must remain >1" away from enemy models. If you are still able to get in base contact, there is nothing denying you to fire the Quad Gun.

Happyjew wrote:
I would just like to point out that, at least in the United States, stealing is illegal. If you are going to steal our opponents Quad-gun, shame on you.

In all seriousness though the only restrictions is that you must remain >1" away from enemy models. If you are still able to get in base contact, there is nothing denying you to fire the Quad Gun.

I gotcha Yes, only on the tabletop can you "steal" your opponent's quad gun. You should in no way actually take unlawful physical possesion of your opponent's quad gun...

strengthofthedragon2 wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
With no reasonable poll reaponse available, it is entirely possible to steal a quad-gun. If it is unmanned, it is up for grabs.

It is my first poll... I tried to represent different views... Is there another response option that needs added? Thanks!

Here is how your poll should have gone:

Is it possible to steal an opponent's quad gun?

Yes
No
not sure.

Simple.