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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - again, even if you fire it as rapid fire, if you wrote out its state line you would have included "salvo", and thus you would have "treated it as" salvo.

Again, does "treat as" require "must use as"?

Ok... how in the world are you treating a weapon as a salvo 2/4, if you are firing it as rf?

It's not useful if you use it on infantry that you plan to move? Well, deploy it with relentless units: isn't it what we should call... "tactics"?

Again, define what "treated as" means, and show it means "is required to USE as"

You havent actually answered the question. Show proof that "treats as" is equivalent to "use as" and you might have an argument.

Also your last line is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, define what "treated as" means, and show it means "is required to USE as"

You havent actually answered the question. Show proof that "treats as" is equivalent to "use as" and you might have an argument.

Also your last line is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

That's not the point I'm trying to make, so I don't need to show that proof.

According to you a passed FNP test can result in a wound, because you treat it as saved.
Models deploying by Deep Strike treat all difficult terrain as dangerous, so you can opt to not make dangerous terrain tests.
If a Psychic Pilot suffers Perils its no big deal - you don't have to treat it as a Glancing Hit.
No Specified Melee Weapon can be gained infinitely as its optional, right?

Treated as means is.
The profile for a BoD boltgun is Range 24 STR 4 AP 5 Salvo 2/4. We know this because the BoD says to treat them as Salvo.

Please type out the weapon profile as you see it. And please argue against my actual argument instead of what you want it to be.

Except nothing you posted is "must use as". Treated as Dangerous means it is difficult AND dangerous, and you have no choice about taking Diff / Dang terrain tests. Flawed logic

Salvo 2/4 & Rapid fire is the profile, AND twinlinked if on a bike. It has been treated as Salvo AND IS Rapid fire as well, because nothing about "treated as" removes the pre-existing rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except nothing you posted is "must use as". Treated as Dangerous means it is difficult AND dangerous, and you have no choice about taking Diff / Dang terrain tests. Flawed logic

Salvo 2/4 & Rapid fire is the profile, AND twinlinked if on a bike. It has been treated as Salvo AND IS Rapid fire as well, because nothing about "treated as" removes the pre-existing rules.

Psychic Pilot does not say that the Perils wound must turn into a Glancing Hit - it's simply treated as one.
Therefore I opt for it to stay as a wound.
Vehicles cannot suffer wounds.
Psychic Pilot doesn't suffer when rolling Perils.

Again, you're misconstruing my argument. I have not said, and will not say, that the rule says "must use as".
I'm saying that the BoD rule says that your boltgun is Salvo. Not Salvo plus other things - just Salvo.

Counts as == Treated as, agreed?

Lash Whips make all models in BTB count Initiative as 1. According to your argument (since it does not replace or say must use as) a SM Captain could still swing on I5 if he was based during the charge. We know this is not true.

So are you also arguing it replaces twinlinked?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So are you also arguing it replaces twinlinked?

Yes, it would. As I said.

Any response to my argument or just trying to get me to contradict myself?

Enough with the hostiility. It was a genuine question

Would you also argue that treating all terrain as difficult would turn Impassable terrain into Difficult?

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So are you also arguing it replaces twinlinked?

Yes, it would. As I said.

Any response to my argument or just trying to get me to contradict myself?

I think the twin-linked bit is misleading and not a good example, rulebook references:

Page 50. "A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: assault, heavy, ordnance, pistol, rapid fire, or salvo"

Page 51: "Special Rules: The type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question."

Boltguns are treated as salvo, as per the rule (I agree with Rigeld2), however twin-linking remains, as they are not a "type" being replaced, they are special rules that apply to the weapon. Changing the weapon type would not change the special rules.

Why is it that the rule book and new codices use "treat as" to mean "is" and you seem to want to ignore that fact?

FNP is a great example.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Enough with the hostiility. It was a genuine question

Would you also argue that treating all terrain as difficult would turn Impassable terrain into Difficult?

Depending on how it's worded, yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Target wrote:
Boltguns are treated as salvo, as per the rule (I agree with Rigeld2), however twin-linking remains, as they are not a "type" being replaced, they are special rules that apply to the weapon. Changing the weapon type would not change the special rules.

The rule doesn't say "Salvo and other special rules it already had."
It says "Salvo". End of line.

I think the Twin linked is far more of a grey area than Rapid Fire.

It was mostly to do with Enfeeble, which from memory tells you to treat ALL terrain as difficult. If you are claiming a direct replacement of one type for another, this would lead to impassable terrain no longer being impassable.

Target - yet psycannon have 2 profiles. So we know that rule isnt always true, so why does it suddenly HAVE to be true here?
Liturgies - I am not ignoring that fact. It IS Salvo, and it IS Rapid Fire. Same as enfeebled Impasssable terrain IS Impassable and IS Difficult. DS into difficult terrain means the terrain IS difficult AND dangerous.

For example - deepstrikign drop pod, unit disembarks. Unit inside must make a normal move wholly within 6". They treat the terrain as dangerous, but do they also take a difficult terrain test? Given you are not told one type replaces the other, the answer is YES.

It's rapid fire but it is treated as salvo in range of the banner. That is different to it gets to be both.

So you're example under enfeeble is that you cannot gain an extra benefit by choosing the most advantageous of the two when you're told to treat x as y?
So why do you get the benefit of rapidfire when you move and salvo when you don't?

Dont put words in my mouth. I never said that.

I was stating do you believe Impassable is lost under enfeeble? The majority consensus on the last thread is that it is NOT lost, as terrain can have more than one type and nothing states the previous type is replaced

I am simply being consistent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It was mostly to do with Enfeeble, which from memory tells you to treat ALL terrain as difficult. If you are claiming a direct replacement of one type for another, this would lead to impassable terrain no longer being impassable.

Correct, RAW.
I think in that case it's obvious what the intent is.

Target - yet psycannon have 2 profiles. So we know that rule isnt always true, so why does it suddenly HAVE to be true here?

Because the GK codex specifies that Psycannons are Assault 2/Heavy 4 which generates a conflict, and the codex wins those.
The DA codex specifies a single Type (Salvo) and you're attempting to insert a second one. You need a conflict to have the codex win that fight - and the only way for there to be a conflict is if you create one with your incorrect interpretation.

Liturgies - I am not ignoring that fact. It IS Salvo, and it IS Rapid Fire. Same as enfeebled Impasssable terrain IS Impassable and IS Difficult. DS into difficult terrain means the terrain IS difficult AND dangerous.

Well, no - that's not true. If it is Salvo, then it's not Rapid Fire/Salvo.

For example - deepstrikign drop pod, unit disembarks. Unit inside must make a normal move wholly within 6". They treat the terrain as dangerous, but do they also take a difficult terrain test? Given you are not told one type replaces the other, the answer is YES.

Given the rules for dangerous terrain the answer is yes. In 5th dangerous terrain alone didn't cause a difficult terrain test. In 6th rules changed and Dangerous Terrain is a superset of Difficult Terrain (page 90).
Dangerous includes all rules for Difficult and in addition causes Dangerous Terrain tests.

No, it can be Salvo while also having Rapid Fire, because it is not "just Salvo". You are inserting a restriction that does not exist in the rules - it IS SAlvo, and IS Rapidfire, and happily satisfies the requiremetn to be Salvo.

There is a conflict as you are not told to replace, so you have no permission to replace the type, only add. You now have two types, whcih is a conflict the codex wins out on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it can be Salvo while also having Rapid Fire, because it is not "just Salvo". You are inserting a restriction that does not exist in the rules - it IS SAlvo, and IS Rapidfire, and happily satisfies the requiremetn to be Salvo.

There is a conflict as you are not told to replace, so you have no permission to replace the type, only add. You now have two types, whcih is a conflict the codex wins out on.

You are not told to add a type. You are told that it IS a type.

Exactly like Lash Whips. According to you they're useless because everyone that is affected can just opt to use their other initiative value.

And according to you impassable lava becomes passable if you are enfeebled.

Stop with the accusative tone, not really needed in an honest debate.

I'm with nos here, nothing says it loses rf, so it doesn't.
However when firing the rf weapon your not treating it as salvo, so whilst it still has the rf rule you cannot fire it that way untill its out of range of the banner.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And according to you impassable lava becomes passable if you are enfeebled.

Absolutely correct. And? RAW is silly sometimes.

Stop with the accusative tone, not really needed in an honest debate.

I apologize - I'm not intending any accusative tone. Please don't read what I say that way.

Yes or no - using your interpretation Lash Whips are useless because a model that is base to base with one can simply choose to use it's normal initiative instead of 1 because Lash Whips do not replace your init value.

Neither - you dont have a mechanism to choose which I value you use, so you are stuck

RAW is silly sometimes.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it can be Salvo while also having Rapid Fire, because it is not "just Salvo". You are inserting a restriction that does not exist in the rules - it IS SAlvo, and IS Rapidfire, and happily satisfies the requiremetn to be Salvo.

There is a conflict as you are not told to replace, so you have no permission to replace the type, only add. You now have two types, whcih is a conflict the codex wins out on.

You are not told to add a type. You are told that it IS a type.

Right we treat it as Salvo 2/4, the regular bolter is Rapid Fire type.

It now has two types as nothing takes the Rapid Fire type away from the bolter.

Just like a Psycannon is Assault 2 or Heavy 4.

Just like a Splinter Cannon is Assault 4 or Heavy 6.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It now has two types as nothing takes the Rapid Fire type away from the bolter.

Just like a Psycannon is Assault 2 or Heavy 4.

Just like a Splinter Cannon is Assault 4 or Heavy 6.

So you have permission to shoot the bolter as rapidfire even though you're told to treat it as salvo?
The second you try to shoot it as a rapidfire weapon you are not treating it salvo and are breaking rules.

It IS Salvo, and it IS Rapid Fire.

We are treating it as Salvo, but since it has the Rapid Fire type as well we are shooting with that type instead of Salvo.


It does not say we "must use as" a Salvo type.

Salvo 2/4 & Rapid fire is the profile, AND twinlinked if on a bike. It has been treated as Salvo AND IS Rapid fire as well, because nothing about "treated as" removes the pre-existing rules.

I'm sorry if you are told to treat it as x, how is not treating it as x still treating it as x.

Please explain that, you have not squared that circle. Nothing removes the pre-existing rule but there is a restriction to using it, it says to use this or "treat it as" this.

If I treat sand as hazardous waste, it doesn't mean it is hazardous waste but I do use all of the rules and precautions for hazardous waste when dealing with it.
If I treat someone as sub-human, they remain human but I still don't afford them the same status as everyone else because I'm scum.

Because you treat it as Salvo 2/4, we are still doing that, we have the option to fire it as a Salvo 2/4 type.

We are not choosing to use the Salvo 2/4 type, we are using the Rapid Fire type, as nothing removes the Rapid Fire type from the profile.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because you treat it as Salvo 2/4, we are still doing that, we have the option to fire it as a Salvo 2/4 type.

We are not choosing to use the Salvo 2/4 type, we are using the Rapid Fire type, as nothing removes the Rapid Fire type from the profile.

Are you shooting the weapon as a rapidfire type? Are you rolling 1 dice per gun to hit a target 12-24 inches away after moving?
If yes to the above then you are not treating it as a salvo 2/4 weapon.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because you treat it as Salvo 2/4, we are still doing that, we have the option to fire it as a Salvo 2/4 type.

We are not choosing to use the Salvo 2/4 type, we are using the Rapid Fire type, as nothing removes the Rapid Fire type from the profile.

Are you shooting the weapon as a rapidfire type? Are you rolling 1 dice per gun to hit a target 12-24 inches away after moving?
If yes to the above then you are not treating it as a salvo 2/4 weapon.

Yes you are, just because you treat it as Salvo 2/4 Nothing takes away the Rapid Fire profile.

Doe s"treat" equate to "must also use as"?

It can be treated as "salvo" whilst also being "rapid fire". They are not mutually exclusive.

They are. A weapon has a single profile, either it's
A -the usual thing as rapidfire, assault x or whatever
B -those rare ones where it is assault x/heavy y etc
C -those rare ones where a weapon has a listed ammo types which you can choose between.

This is not the same as B as B is a single profile, we have a weapon with 2 profiles now according to you. And it's not C as you have no permission to change "ammo types". You don't treat a missile launcher as Frag, it has specific permission to choose the ammo type, same as bolters for sternguard.
You do not have permission to treat it as A but use B.

"Treat as" does equate to "use as". If I use a hammer to open a can is it any less of a can-opener? I am treating it as a can-opener.


When a jetbike unit treats impassable terrain as dangerous terrain it is no longer impassable. Same for jump, jet and skimmers. Take a look at that NOS

 liturgies of blood wrote:
They are. A weapon has a single profile, either it's
A -the usual thing as rapidfire, assault x or whatever
B -those rare ones where it is assault x/heavy y etc
C -those rare ones where a weapon has a listed ammo types which you can choose between.

This is not the same as B as B is a single profile, we have a weapon with 2 profiles now according to you. And it's not C as you have no permission to change "ammo types". You don't treat a missile launcher as Frag, it has specific permission to choose the ammo type, same as bolters for sternguard.
You do not have permission to treat it as A but use B.

"Treat as" does equate to "use as". If I use a hammer to open a can is it any less of a can-opener? I am treating it as a can-opener.


When a jetbike unit treats impassable terrain as dangerous terrain it is no longer impassable. Same for jump, jet and skimmers. Take a look at that NOS

It actually becomes B, as it only has a single profile, it does not have two profiles, as the range and AP do not change, all that is added is the Salvo 2/4 to the existing profile.

Treat as does not = use as, that has no basis in the rules at all.

When a jetbike treats impassable terrain as dangerous terrain it is still impassible, but jetbikes have a specific exception to move over impassible, this is in no way the same situation as a weapon having two types.