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.

Tsilber wrote:
If Vector strike isnt a close combat or "technically" a shooting attack. Then what is it....

A special rule. Just like the Doom's Leech Life, or Mawloc's Terror from the Deep or Perils of the Warp.

JinxDragon wrote:


You need to make an argument on why Vector Strike can be considered a close combat attack to come close to filling the requirements to attack the gun encampment to begin with.

Dont know if you missed this.

"bottom of the Vector strike rules says that a model that makes a Vector strike at the end of its movement phase is classed as firing one weapon in its shooting phase.."

So vector strike does count as a shooting attack and so can attack a QG or IL?

Welcome to warhammer Tsilber, where common sense isn't required as the rules have been written by green-skins.

cerbrus2,

It is a good catch and an argument can be made around that line, but it is just an interpretation at best. Just because you are reduced one weapon in the shooting phase does not mean the vector strike is a 'shooting' attack. This is evident by the fact a lot of monstrous winged creatures do not have shooting weapons, yet are able to still carry out vector strikes. It leaves a question of where they are shooting from, and why you do not use the strength of any shooting weapon as well as a few others that point to such interpretation being less supported then 'unique special rule.'

It is clear, if anything, that vector strikes are more then likely melee or close combat attacks. The wounds and damages are all treated as a basic close combat attack even if it is an auto-hit. The problem is this interpretation doesn't mesh well with other rules, like how it would allow or deny smash and other melee bonus special rules. The simplest answer still being it us a unique, and you only apply exactly what is written within to prevent these meshing problems.

So sadly even simple causes meshing issues when you put very rare special rules together. It ends up creating large gray areas which all sorts of interpretations can be made and pleas for FAQ's can be heard. I think we are seeing one such situation, where two separate unique rules are not meshing well together. In these situations you don't have to go by a strict as written interpretation, beg for a FAQ, like you do here to get a clear understanding like we mad men seem to want. In a real game, simply talk to your opponent when these rare things occur and then push on knowing these situations occur so rarely it makes the rules more humorous when encountered then broken.

Technically you can not vector strike a gun encampment because vector strike is neither a shooting or a close combat attack, being unique, and those where the only two attacks considered in the gun encampment rule due to editorial oversight that is, well, even I will forgive that one.

Answers this question not from a crunch perspective, cause that is 'unique,' but from a logic point of view: If it is not close combat and not shooting, then what the hell type of attack is vector strike?

Pyrian wrote:
The "Quadgun immunity to non-standard attacks" argument is very weak, in that there's nothing special about it; an equivalent argument can be made regardless of target. If Vector Strike cannot act like shooting (or close combat), it also can't roll to-wound. If we're going to make the eminently reasonable assumption that it can roll to-wound, then there's really no further reason why it can't hit a gun emplacement.

Vector Strike says "At the end of the Movement phase, nominate any one unengaged enemy unit" P. 43

Is the Quad Gun an enemy unit? (Hint no, it is not a model or a unit, it is terrain).

Has it been determined if units are allowed cover saves against Vector Strike hits? You are allowed cover saves against shooting attacks but not against close combat attacks. But as Vector Strike hits are neither then what?

It's specifically stated that Invulnerable saves may always be taken whenever a model suffers a wound but this is not the case of Cover saves.

Outside the Shooting phase and Close Combat phase section the rulebook covers how good a Cover save is in different terrain, ruins and such and how Special rules affect the cover save in mostly positive ways but it's still not determined if Cover saves are allowed against Vector Strikes, or is it?

FAQ specifically states no cover saves.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
FAQ specifically states no cover saves.

Thanks, at which page please?

Cant access at work, however simply searching for "Vector Strike" should narrow it down for you

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cant access at work, however simply searching for "Vector Strike" should narrow it down for you

Yes of course, thanks.

Chaospling wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
FAQ specifically states no cover saves.

Thanks, at which page please?

Page 2 of 40k rulebook FAQ

5th rule down on the left hand side.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3170233a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.4_APRIL13.pdf

edit:

missed that this thread had a second page. This Post was obsolete -.-

 Lobukia wrote:
In my most recent game I got Master of Deception. I gave infiltrate to a heldrake and then outflanked with it on turn 2, vector striking a quad gun on an ADL before it could fire... Legal?

Does the Warlord Trait 'Master of Deception' actually give the units the Infiltrate USR? I thought it just allowed D3 units to Infiltrate. Not quite the same thing, as not actually conferring the Infiltrate USR means the units wouldn't therefore have the Outlflank USR.

Henrythesecond wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
In my most recent game I got Master of Deception. I gave infiltrate to a heldrake and then outflanked with it on turn 2, vector striking a quad gun on an ADL before it could fire... Legal?

Does the Warlord Trait 'Master of Deception' actually give the units the Infiltrate USR? I thought it just allowed D3 units to Infiltrate. Not quite the same thing, as not actually conferring the Infiltrate USR means the units wouldn't therefore have the Outlflank USR.

"These units gain the Infiltrate special rule"
So yes they can outflank.

 grendel083 wrote:

Henrythesecond wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
In my most recent game I got Master of Deception. I gave infiltrate to a heldrake and then outflanked with it on turn 2, vector striking a quad gun on an ADL before it could fire... Legal?

Does the Warlord Trait 'Master of Deception' actually give the units the Infiltrate USR? I thought it just allowed D3 units to Infiltrate. Not quite the same thing, as not actually conferring the Infiltrate USR means the units wouldn't therefore have the Outlflank USR.

"These units gain the Infiltrate special rule"
So yes they can outflank.

I doff my cap to you sir, for you are correct. My apologies.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
It is a model, it has a profile, but I do think you might be correct.

No, it is not a model.

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" P. 3

The Quadgun does not have a unit type. It is not a model. A Quadgun is just battlefield Debris.

Page 105 has the rules for Gun Emplacements (In the Battlefield Debris Section).

Page 114 has the rules for the ADL, which you can add a gun emplacement onto the ADL, and page 114 lists it as Battlefield Debris.

Bottom line, the Gun is not a model.

You do realize you can shoot at a quad gun and kill it, right?

It can be debated that it is not a model. That argument is based on a line found under the Other Important Information section on the quoted page. It highlights models have 'unit types,' special rules, additional saves and other bits of information. The wording use, will have a unit type, can be used to make an argument that anything without a unit type is not in fact a model.

I don't agree with it but it is solid enough to put gun encampments into a 'quantum state' of model/non-model.

tgf wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
It is a model, it has a profile, but I do think you might be correct.

No, it is not a model.

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type" P. 3

The Quadgun does not have a unit type. It is not a model. A Quadgun is just battlefield Debris.

Page 105 has the rules for Gun Emplacements (In the Battlefield Debris Section).

Page 114 has the rules for the ADL, which you can add a gun emplacement onto the ADL, and page 114 lists it as Battlefield Debris.

Bottom line, the Gun is not a model.

You do realize you can shoot at a quad gun and kill it, right?

Of course you can shoot at a quad gun, but that is only because the rules for the Quad gun state that you can shoot at it, and there are rules that tell you that you can attack it in Close Combat.

No such rules exist for using special rules, or non shooting psychic powers like Misfortune, on a Quad gun.

JinxDragon wrote:
It can be debated that it is not a model.

Actually the rules are quite clear about the Quad gun being Terrain, and not a model/unit.

It is terrain, but there is nothing there that says it cannot be a model/unit.

Hence the 'has no unit type, therefore not a model' argument.

Fragile wrote:
It is terrain, but there is nothing there that says it cannot be a model/unit.

There is, however, the definition of model/unit, which states that they will have a "unit type" which the Quadgun most certainly lacks.

Fragile wrote:
It is terrain, but there is nothing there that says it cannot be a model/unit.

Actually the rules say that it is not a model/unit.

See, debatable.

It is a technical issue at this point and as we are looking at Rules as Written through a narrow glass, the technical answer is always correct. Model is a game terminology used throughout the book to mean a specific thing. That meaning was derived in paragraphs outlining what a model is, which many read whole sentences as a check list you need to reach to be considered a model, which they clearly are.

Gun Encampment has almost all of the traits of a technical model. The argument is based on that fact and simple logic. Should you fail to meet all the requirements listed forth, you can not be considered a model.

I argue it is a unique model, and that there are other ones through out the book. The concept of something unique has been established many times, and sections of books can exist as exception to the basic definitions and rules. This would allow it to be a model, but it has to follow the rules written simply for it because the rest do not apply. Therefore, even as a model, it can only be damaged by the rules set forth in it's entry making this all moot.

The largest problem with this one though, the entry never refers to the Gun Encampment as a model, it refers to the model replacing a model as a model but repeats the words Gun Encampment throughout when model would of been easier.

JinxDragon wrote:
See, debatable.

No, really it is not, unless you have a rules quote that I missed.

It is a technical issue at this point and as we are looking at Rules as Written through a narrow glass, the technical answer is always correct. Model is a game terminology used throughout the book to mean a specific thing. That meaning was derived in paragraphs outlining what a model is, which many read whole sentences as a check list you need to reach to be considered a model, which they clearly are.

Gun Encampment has almost all of the traits of a technical model. The argument is based on that fact and simple logic. Should you fail to meet all the requirements listed forth, you can not be considered a model.

Except it does not have the one that it needs to be considered a model "each model will have a unit type" (3) and Battlefield Debris is not a unit type

I argue it is a unique model, and that there are other ones through out the book. The concept of something unique has been established many times, and sections of books can exist as exception to the basic definitions and rules. This would allow it to be a model, but it has to follow the rules written simply for it because the rest do not apply. Therefore, even as a model, it can only be damaged by the rules set forth in it's entry making this all moot.

Except it is not a model, as "each model will have a unit type" (3) Does the Gun Emplacement have a unit type or is it Battlefield Debris?

The largest problem with this one though, the entry never refers to the Gun Encampment as a model, it refers to the model replacing a model as a model but repeats the words Gun Encampment throughout when model would of been easier.

It never "refers to the Gun Encampment as a model" because the Gun Emplacement is Battlefield Debris and not a model.

It would not have been easier for the entry to refer to it as a model, I would have been incorrect for the entry to refer to it as a model.

I have proven that the gun is terrain and not a model/unit.

The Vector strike special rule tells us that it works on units.

The Quadgun is not a Model/Unit...

JinxDragon wrote:
See, debatable.

Existence of a debate doesnt mean the rule is in doubt, just that some people dont understand the rule

Not going to disagree with you two on that matter, the existence of a debate doesn't mean you are wrong, but it does feel as if you are taking offense at me pointing out that the debate does exist.

If we look at nothing but the rules, then it is pretty clearly defined that Gun Encampments do not meet the definition of model. I have even said as much, which makes me a little surprised to see a post where you are still trying to argue that point by quoting one that supports it. The logic backed by the rules as written is a very strong case. Think about that: Your case is strong enough that I put it forth as the explanation as to why gun emplacements might not be models. Honestly, every time I review it, I move further and further away from the model category myself.

At this point I have only one potential argument that I could put forth related to this and even I don't believe it is strong enough to stand on it's own merit. That is why my last post had me pointing out the repeating use of the word gun emplacement. They could of easily used the word model instead of repeating the same words time and time again but did not. This shows intent not to create a situation where the multiple definitions for model has been applied.

I would suggest to embrace the debate, because the longer it goes on the stronger your argument becomes.

Not really - the arguiment isnt refutable under the current rules. It remains exactly as strong as the other dozen times it has been posted.

Continuing the debate, when there is no counter argument available, is just repetitive.

I am pointing out that existence of a debate has no bearing on the veracity of the argument. Claiming 1+1 = 3, and arguing about it, when you accept the additive identity doesnt mean there is doubt over 1+1=2, just that some people will argue anything it seems.

What more can I say to that but welcome to the Internet?

The debate is going to reoccur no matter what you or I think on the validity of it. We both might agree, though I won't on the principle there could always be something overlooked, that all arguments have been made. That doesn't mean people completely ignorant of our conclusions won't come along and bring up old arguments. Doesn't mean we won't find this topic a few years down the track with some new perspective, adding an line of reasoning we over looked. At the very least, we are all better equipped to quote the exact rules and regulations to give them the answer.

The debate will always have purpose.

However, back onto the matter at hand. I do concur, we have nothing new to bring to the matter so we should simply let it die down till someone else revives it again in a few months. After all, this is the Internet and that is going to happen for sure, sadly likely someone who disagrees with this conclusion and is hoping to 're-roll the dice' and get a group that sides with them.

I can say, personally, that it was a pleasure as it brought to light some very interesting interpretations of the rules. Not only that, but it did sway my own view on the matter which is something I always like to see. The icing on the cake is the fact we are now left with a completely supported conclusion that is ridiculous: A piece of ordinance is able to ignore an attack from a dragon, one which explode tanks and take the heads off monstrous creatures, more effectively then it can ignore being shot by a dart filled with nerve toxin....

Interesting read, I wanted to ask if a vector strike is a special rule and thus can't be a target what about a deff rolla? I ask because in a game I rolled a tau gunline with one quad being manned. We played that the closest models died which resulted in the quad being either a causalty or stuck underneath the battlewagon. Since he wanted more troops and not a gun under/moved by the tank shock I'd like to know how others would have played it. After deciding we rolled the two FW (died) and then the quad (which failed 2 of 3)

FW FW etc

FW Quad FW
___________

__BWDR__


Thanks

You can not Tank shock a gun emplacement, it is terrain not an enemy unit, the only rules for wounding a gun emplacement are from Shooting or Close Combat.

So then how would you place the BW? WMS the gun elsewhere? The BW? There was a valid target to tank shock.

*edited Or rather no target needed: tank shock is just saying the direction/distance but I was curious if the gun moved or not and then who could get in base contact since the FAQ says 'nonvehicle' to shoot it. Thanks