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.

MVBrandt wrote:

AS an aside to an earlier question, the new weapon batteries ARE legal. Clarification - their emplaced weapons ARE targetable, at the usual stat line (T7/yadayada).

Well maybe I can still return mine. Veng batteries are pretty much useless then. T7 isnt what it used to be. Can you target the Heavy Bolters on a bastion?

So page 96 has the "emplaced weapons" rule. The Veng batteries closely follow those rules. They are much more akin to a emplaced weapon than a "gun emplacement" ala Quad Gun or Icarus Lascannon. I don't know how you guys came up thinking it had a separate profile than the building its mounted on. Granted the whole "emplacement" thing is murky, but you're taking a leap unsupported by the model's actual rules.

Glocknall wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

AS an aside to an earlier question, the new weapon batteries ARE legal. Clarification - their emplaced weapons ARE targetable, at the usual stat line (T7/yadayada).

Well maybe I can still return mine. Veng batteries are pretty much useless then. T7 isnt what it used to be. Can you target the Heavy Bolters on a bastion?

So page 96 has the "emplaced weapons" rule. The Veng batteries closely follow those rules. They are much more akin to a emplaced weapon than a "gun emplacement" ala Quad Gun or Icarus Lascannon. I don't know how you guys came up thinking it had a separate profile than the building its mounted on. Granted the whole "emplacement" thing is murky, but you're taking a leap unsupported by the model's actual rules.

I agree they're useless now, who would pay 75 points for an AV14, LOS blocking, 3+ cover providing structure I get to place in my deployment zone with an emplaced punisher or battle cannon (+10) that I can take two of instead of the usual one. It would be way more fair if the gun was completely untargetable and allowed to blast away all game without any return fire.

For 75 points, what you get is still a steal, so I wouldn't run back to your local GW quite yet. The fact of the matter is they state "one emplaced punisher gatling cannon" - which is easily interpreted EITHER way, as a gun emplacement or an emplaced weapon. For my money, the model itself resembles the Quad Gun/Icarus lascannon found on top of the bastion far more than it resembles one of the heavy bolters in the window, in form and function. I see both sides, but I think the way NOVA is ruling is more sensible, but there's always the other option of ruling "it needs a faq" and not allowing these news fortifications to save everyone an argument/headache on it.

What target said, plus similar language and GW FAQ'ing about Icarus/Quadguns on Bastion, plus this from their own description:

"Keystones of any Imperial fortification, these defensive gun emplacements are capable of annihilating both tanks and infantry alike."

Rawr! Angry Rawr!

But back on topic can't wait. Still need to figure out what I'm playing with. I await the FAQ with glee as that might help my decision!

 Hulksmash wrote:
Rawr! Angry Rawr!

But back on topic can't wait. Still need to figure out what I'm playing with. I await the FAQ with glee as that might help my decision!

Just set yourself at ease Brad, I'll beat you in the GT, you'll beat me in the Invitational, and we can hug it out realizing we've successfully griefed each other into nothing again. See? It doesn't even matter what you bring, it's just fate!

MVBrandt wrote:
What target said, plus similar language and GW FAQ'ing about Icarus/Quadguns on Bastion, plus this from their own description:

"Keystones of any Imperial fortification, these defensive gun emplacements are capable of annihilating both tanks and infantry alike."

So like Gun Emplacements (Quad Guns, Icarus) you can fire it manually?

If you read the System Defense rule it only mentions the building and never the gun itself. It even provides for being able to assault an unoccupied building. I see where your coming from but in this case I think its the wrong conclusion. The entire rules are murkey considering emplacement but if you look at the list entries for the Aegis and Bastion it actually refers to the Quad and Icarus as "gun emplacements". It does not do so for the Vengeance.

Well that would be the third year in a row

I'm just so torn. Do I paint up around another 70 models in the next few weeks (with me working or being out of state a fair amount) or do I just go with what I've been running so hard all year. Or do I go with something I don't have to paint a ton for but haven't played but maybe once.....

Decisions make my head hurt.

Glocknall wrote:
So like Gun Emplacements (Quad Guns, Icarus) you can fire it manually?

Yeah, that would be crazy good and the opposite side of the coin for this ruling. If you are treating them as gun emplacements on top of a AV14 impassable building, I'll just take two punishers and a squad of retributors. 52 Rending S5 shots? Yes, thank you!

Target wrote:

I agree they're useless now, who would pay 75 points for an AV14, LOS blocking, 3+ cover providing structure I get to place in my deployment zone with an emplaced punisher or battle cannon (+10) that I can take two of instead of the usual one. It would be way more fair if the gun was completely untargetable and allowed to blast away all game without any return fire.

For 75 points, what you get is still a steal, so I wouldn't run back to your local GW quite yet. The fact of the matter is they state "one emplaced punisher gatling cannon" - which is easily interpreted EITHER way, as a gun emplacement or an emplaced weapon. For my money, the model itself resembles the Quad Gun/Icarus lascannon found on top of the bastion far more than it resembles one of the heavy bolters in the window, in form and function. I see both sides, but I think the way NOVA is ruling is more sensible, but there's always the other option of ruling "it needs a faq" and not allowing these news fortifications to save everyone an argument/headache on it.

By making the gun and "emplacement" You make it vulnerable to S7, S8, Poison, Sniper and other assorted weapons that are taken in abundance. The gun also does not benefit from the cover save that is provided by an Aegis or Bastion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:

Glocknall wrote:
So like Gun Emplacements (Quad Guns, Icarus) you can fire it manually?

Yeah, that would be crazy good and the opposite side of the coin for this ruling. If you are treating them as gun emplacements on top of a AV14 impassable building, I'll just take two punishers and a squad of retributors. 52 Rending S5 shots? Yes, thank you!

Heh Im thinking a BS 5 Nurgle DP or Fateweaver. LOLZ

Glocknall wrote:

 pretre wrote:

Glocknall wrote:
So like Gun Emplacements (Quad Guns, Icarus) you can fire it manually?

Yeah, that would be crazy good and the opposite side of the coin for this ruling. If you are treating them as gun emplacements on top of a AV14 impassable building, I'll just take two punishers and a squad of retributors. 52 Rending S5 shots? Yes, thank you!

Heh Im thinking a BS 5 Nurgle DP or Fateweaver. LOLZ

Problem with that is he can only fire one. Retributors are dirt cheap for 10 of them and they can fire the whole shebang. And have a great chance of getting rending. That's a lot of pain.

Sorta irrelevant, since there's a unique rule that states it cannot be fired manually.

MVBrandt wrote:
Sorta irrelevant, since there's a unique rule that states it cannot be fired manually.

You're thinking of the Firestorm redoubt.

The VWB has no such rule. So you would be giving players the ability to manual fire the punishers or battle cannons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw, the rules for VWB say 'One Emplaced Punisher Gatling Cannon' compare that to the bastion: 'Four Emplaced Heavy Bolters' 'Gun Emplacement with Icarus Lascannon'

So, just like a bastion, if you want to take out the guns on a Vengeance, you need to roll on the building table and hope for a result that returns a destroyed weapon. (4, 6 and 7.)

Yeah and the Veng dose not have the targeting restrictions that the FR has. This is partially why I think in this case the ruling is incorrect.

Glocknall wrote:
Yeah and the Veng dose not have the targeting restrictions that the FR has. This is partially why I think in this case the ruling is incorrect.

Yeah, it's only targeting restrictions are if it auto-fires, in which case the rulebook kicks in and closest, etc.

And in order to fire it manually, you have to be able to get into BTB with the gun, the building has no access and is impassable...so...gl with that.

Target wrote:
And in order to fire it manually, you have to be able to get into BTB with the gun, the building has no access and is impassable...so...gl with that.

Yeah, good point!

Either way, the wording makes it pretty clear it is an emplaced weapon and not a gun emplacement. There's the link.

 pretre wrote:
Updated with a photobucket one.

Thank ya, yea I mean I know the rules for it, I just don't think it's clear one way or another. I think it's a bit army wavy to declare you need to return your purchase because a model is played differently then you expected, but maybe that's just me.

Target wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Updated with a photobucket one.

Thank ya, yea I mean I know the rules for it, I just don't think it's clear one way or another. I think it's a bit army wavy to declare you need to return your purchase because a model is played differently then you expected, but maybe that's just me.

My only concern is the precedent effect of Nova rulings. I think (at least to me) the wording is clear that they are emplaced (using the exact same wording as Bastion/Fortress Heavy Bolters), but we'll see what happens.

It's important to note that in the Rulebook, the Bastion's Icarus/Quadgun is referred to as an emplaced weapon in at least one location as well. The wishy washy way of these things being ruled requires FAQs, is generally the point here.

As Target points out, another alternative to either of the rulings, is to rule these things completely illegal, since you can't really check up on the rules or prepare for them unless you pirate or purchase a $50 model you may or may not want (different from going to the local GW to look up a codex, or purchasing a $30 ebook supplement). Most who wish to use them have responded very negatively to that option, however.

Target wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Updated with a photobucket one.

Thank ya, yea I mean I know the rules for it, I just don't think it's clear one way or another. I think it's a bit army wavy to declare you need to return your purchase because a model is played differently then you expected, but maybe that's just me.

I was a little dramatic there, it just shocked me a little because after reading the rules and playing a few games with it making it Quad or Icarus never occurred to my opponents or me. The rules are terribly vague but the Occam's Razor on this is to make it a emplaced weapon for the reasons listed above.

I do plan on taking them to NOVA so I obviously have a bias here. Either way it won't dampen my enthusiasm or enjoyment of NoVA in the slightest.

I would have though emplaced and so only the actual structure could be targetted. It's not like the gun doesn't blow up on like a 3+ if you pen the building (which you can target).

Either way is cool since I wasn't bringing one anyway

I saw the new primers are up.

Are there any noticeable changes? I haven't found any yet.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I would have though emplaced and so only the actual structure could be targetted. It's not like the gun doesn't blow up on like a 3+ if you pen the building (which you can target).

Either way is cool since I wasn't bringing one anyway

I am of the field that its an AV14 building that I need to pen to destroy the gun. At least for the VWB's. It is completely to my disadvantage to have it work that way because I am not even running them but it seems pretty clear that the intent was such. Vehicles have armor values that need pens to destroy their weapons. Here word for word mind you, "The Vengeance Weapons Battery contains two standalone emplacements whose turrets can be equipped with either battle cannons or punisher cannons." Personally I'de rather seem them banned over being house ruled and played incorrectly. Not directed at anyone or the event just my two cents.

Why would they be banned? Lack of availability of rules?

Had a quick counts-as question for the narrative. Would some double-ML dreadnoughts be reasonable alternative models for tau crisis and broadside suits? I'm trying to figure out a way to add a Tau detachment without having to mix Tau models in with my Dark Angels... just don't think it would look right. (Of course, I can see a pretty darn reasonable argument for it being confusing so I'm not quite at the 'BUY ALL THE THINGS' stage just yet.)

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2013/08/short-turn-draft-faq-responses-solicited.html

 Lansirill wrote:
Had a quick counts-as question for the narrative. Would some double-ML dreadnoughts be reasonable alternative models for tau crisis and broadside suits? I'm trying to figure out a way to add a Tau detachment without having to mix Tau models in with my Dark Angels... just don't think it would look right. (Of course, I can see a pretty darn reasonable argument for it being confusing so I'm not quite at the 'BUY ALL THE THINGS' stage just yet.)

My opinion Allies who are a different codex should never be count as with models from the main codex. Makes thinbgs way to muddled and confusing.

Creatively modeling and converting so your allies look like a cohesive part of the overall force can be awesome. That said, @ the full blown con level, we also have to discourage simple proxy modeling.

So if you want to convert them up, give them character, and make it readily apparent they aren't simply stand-in proxies, awesome. If you just want to put previously completed dreads down counting as suits, can't say yes due to precedent / Yada Yada. (Which is always hard for me to say!)

I do appreciate the desire to not just plunk some tau down next to angels. Werner Born's striking necron/tau are a good example of a way around this, with the tau all converted tomb kings and such ... clearly distinct from the cron models for gameplay identification, but seamlessly blended into the army aesthetic.

Kind of a big ruling. Scatter lasers do not twin link serpent shield shots?

"The Serpent Shield does benefit from twin-linking due to Laser Lock"

The Serpent shield does benefit ... that's what it rules. Scatter lasers DO twin-linked the serpent shield.


Also - Gornall and others, I believe the head judge is amending the ruling so that the Vengeance Weapons Battery's weapons are Emplaced, and not Gun Emplacements.