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.

A guy tried to say the Aegis could by manned by a vehicle because it has a BS and the Aegis line says it can be manned by a "Model"...

What do you guys think?

This should be in "you make da call" and I believe the FAQ says that vehicles can't use the aegis defense line.

This was possible until the last Errata for the BRB

Page 105 – Battlefield Debris, Gun Emplacement
Change the first sentence of the second paragraph to “One
non-vehicle model in base contact with the gun
emplacement can fire it instead of his own weapon,
following the normal rules forshooting. Note that the model
counts as stationary fort hese purposes”.

So no atm, but this change is quite recent.

NB: Aegis defence line refers to well...the defence line. Vehicles can claim cover saves from the aegis. I feel that needs to be cleared up as people are using the phrases aegis defence line and gun emplacement interchangeably.

If you're referring to either the quadgun or icarus, then the latest FAQ is pretty clear on the issue.

I don't see the problem with useing vehicles to shot the gun it not like thers a gunners seat on it so why wouldn't you be able to fire it remotely from a tank seating next to it safer then staying next to the dang thing .

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/280663.page

Moving to YMDC



Automatically Appended Next Post:

frogy27 wrote:
I don't see the problem with useing vehicles to shot the gun it not like thers a gunners seat on it so why wouldn't you be able to fire it remotely from a tank seating next to it safer then staying next to the dang thing .

The problem with using vehicles to fire the gun is that the wording has been explicitly changed in the latest FAQ to exclude them from using it.

I will always go by what the rule book says till the print a new with thr changes in it. so it says any model. can use the gun so i will use it that way.

frogy27 wrote:
I will always go by what the rule book says till the print a new with thr changes in it. so it says any model. can use the gun so i will use it that way.

They won't print the changes, not until 7th.
So you ignore the official FAQ's?

frogy27 wrote:
I will always go by what the rule book says till the print a new with thr changes in it. so it says any model. can use the gun so i will use it that way.

Cheater I name you, Ill-Sport; and ill Sport is an ill game they say."

and I quote from the begginning of the errata/FAQ sheet:

"Although we strive to ensure that our rulebooks are perfect, sometimes mistakes do creep in. When such issues arise, we feel that it is important to deal with them as promptly as we can, and we therefore produce regular updates for all of our rulebooks. When changes are made, the version number will be updated, and any changes from the previous version will be highlighted in Magenta. Where a version number has a letter, E.g. 1.1a, this means it has had a local update, only in that language, to clarify a translation issue or other minor correction. Each update is split into three sections: Errata, Amendments, and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the codex, while the Amendments bring the rulebook up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules. Although you can mark corrections directly in your rulebook, this is by no means necessary – just keep a copy of the update with your rulebook."

this clearly states that the errata/FAQ sheet is a correction to the rulebook and thus if you do not follow them you are cheating, and now that you know about the rule change, this is not even ignorance of the rule but blatant disregard of the rule.

 insaniak wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/280663.page

Moving to YMDC



Automatically Appended Next Post:

frogy27 wrote:
I don't see the problem with useing vehicles to shot the gun it not like thers a gunners seat on it so why wouldn't you be able to fire it remotely from a tank seating next to it safer then staying next to the dang thing .

The problem with using vehicles to fire the gun is that the wording has been explicitly changed in the latest FAQ to exclude them from using it.

Sadly, they failed to clarify how the Gun Emplacements work with models that can fire more than one weapon, didn't they?

 Shandara wrote:
Sadly, they failed to clarify how the Gun Emplacements work with models that can fire more than one weapon, didn't they?

Why would they need to, the rules state they fire the Gun Emplacement instead of their weapon.

frogy27 wrote:
I will always go by what the rule book says till the print a new with thr changes in it. so it says any model. can use the gun so i will use it that way.

So you are just flat out cheating then?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Sadly, they failed to clarify how the Gun Emplacements work with models that can fire more than one weapon, didn't they?

Why would they need to, the rules state they fire the Gun Emplacement instead of their weapon.

If there was an 's' at the end of that rule I'd agree.

FarseerAndyMan wrote:
A guy tried to say the Aegis could by manned by a vehicle because it has a BS and the Aegis line says it can be manned by a "Model"...

What do you guys think?

I think, punch him once in the mouth for me while your kicking the gak out of him, would ya?

Nothing says "I enjoy my toy soldier hobby and would be fun to game with" like threats of violence.

I wouldn't treat anyone too harshly for wanting to shoot the quad gun or Icarus with a vehicle. Technically it was legal up until the most recent version of the main rulebook FAQ.

 Shandara wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Sadly, they failed to clarify how the Gun Emplacements work with models that can fire more than one weapon, didn't they?

Why would they need to, the rules state they fire the Gun Emplacement instead of their weapon.

If there was an 's' at the end of that rule I'd agree.

Instead of, is really clear language. they fire the Gun Emplacement instead of... So no firing their own weapon and the Gun Emplacement. (But that is off topic so I digress).

 Mannahnin wrote:
I wouldn't treat anyone too harshly for wanting to shoot the quad gun or Icarus with a vehicle. Technically it was legal up until the most recent version of the main rulebook FAQ.

100% this^, I have even fired the aegis with a razorback before and my opponents were fine with it. The FaQ invalidated that option.

 Dakkamite wrote:

FarseerAndyMan wrote:
A guy tried to say the Aegis could by manned by a vehicle because it has a BS and the Aegis line says it can be manned by a "Model"...

What do you guys think?

I think, punch him once in the mouth for me while your kicking the gak out of him, would ya?

Before the current FAQ it was legal for a vehicle to shoot a gun emplacement. So threats of violence are not warranted in this case.

Threats of violence are never warranted, and usually cause a mass eye-rolling among everyone reading the threat. But I expect he meant it as a joke.

 chaplaincliff wrote:
this clearly states that the errata/FAQ sheet is a correction to the rulebook and thus if you do not follow them you are cheating,

This is nonsense. It isn't 'cheating' any more than any other rules change that is agreed to by your opponent would be.

There are two possible results of this attitude - either his opponent agrees to ignore the FAQs, in which case they have a game and all is right with the world. Or they don't agree, and don't play... and all is still right with the world. It's no more 'cheating' than, say, using Codex Witch Hunters instead of the WD Sisters list.


Having said that, ignoring the rulebook errata does seem just a touch short-sighted.

 insaniak wrote:

 chaplaincliff wrote:
this clearly states that the errata/FAQ sheet is a correction to the rulebook and thus if you do not follow them you are cheating,

This is nonsense. It isn't 'cheating' any more than any other rules change that is agreed to by your opponent would be.

There are two possible results of this attitude - either his opponent agrees to ignore the FAQs, in which case they have a game and all is right with the world. Or they don't agree, and don't play... and all is still right with the world. It's no more 'cheating' than, say, using Codex Witch Hunters instead of the WD Sisters list.


Having said that, ignoring the rulebook errata does seem just a touch short-sighted.

OK, maybe i came off a bit harsh, but I for one always have a printed copy of relevant codex's and the BRB with me when I play a game, and I always have all of the updated faq's on my phone with me as well so there is no reason for someone to not play with them, I see the errata as an extension to the rule-book and I always try to play to the rulebook as best I can, if we are in the middle of a game and someone tries to say the FAQ's don't matter we would have an issue.

The problem with some of these ideas that some people don't like the Errata/FAQ's or this rule or that rule is that I now have to have this 10 minute conversation about this and that just in case someone has a fringe view on the way the game is played.

Must people don't read faq.

frogy27 wrote:
Must people don't read faq.

Then won't you feel great for pulling out your copy and educating them about it???

frogy27 wrote:
Must people don't read faq.

Most people I know do.