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.

No, that's incorrect.

Treated as must mean the same as is.

Therefore you have A(X').

So you have lost the other rules as well?

White is treated as black does not stop white also being white

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The onus on proving the loss of something (rapid fire) should surely be on your side? You have yet to do so.

I'd say it's on both. Even if you can completely disprove my view, you still have to prove yours is correct.

Do you create a dual profile? One with type: rapid fire, and one with type: Salvo?

Do you replace the Rapid fire type with Salvo?

As to whcih to choose - I dont see any way of picking, as there is no intent argument that can be made.

Creating a seperate profile is adding in all kinds of things not listed in the banner rules.
What is being suggested is adding a type to an existing profile, similar to a Psycannon, but without any rule allowing for the choice of profile. In other words a broken weapon.
If the rule said anything about adding another profile, then there would be no discussion here at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you have lost the other rules as well?

White is treated as black does not stop white also being white

The other Types, yes. Your letter assignments weren't very clear.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Drager - again, you are creating a restrictive statement - that in order to treat the weapon as salvo, you must ONLY fire it as salvo. That isnt in the definition of "treats"

Yes it is. As I have shown.

At this point we have both presented evidence and come to differing conclusions, unless you have something new, there is little point in continuing as we will both simply assert a position from now on I guess. I am happy my interpretation and reasoning is solid and that you are mistaken in your understanding. You feel the opposite, as is your right.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
White is treated as black does not stop white also being white

It does however stop it being treated as white.
You're thinking of treating White as Back AND White.

A boltgun is still a boltgun. It is still Rapid Fire.
But it can't be treated as Rapid Fire.
Because it can't be both, as types are mutually exclusive.

grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The onus on proving the loss of something (rapid fire) should surely be on your side? You have yet to do so.

I'd say it's on both. Even if you can completely disprove my view, you still have to prove yours is correct.

No you dont, as mine is the H0 in this instance. The default position. Replacement has to be H1. Without proof of H1 (or evidence disproving H0) , you are not moved from H0

grendel083 wrote:

Do you create a dual profile? One with type: rapid fire, and one with type: Salvo?

Do you replace the Rapid fire type with Salvo?

As to whcih to choose - I dont see any way of picking, as there is no intent argument that can be made.

Creating a seperate profile is adding in all kinds of things not listed in the banner rules.

Which is the point of that entire paragraph, if you had actually read it through properly. I am stating H0 is holding currently, despite Rigelds assertions otherwise, so you end up with a broken rule. How to then resolve the broken rule - I gave the two realistic methods of doing so, both of which are made up from the lack of rules we are currently in.

[quote=grendel083 What is being suggested is adding a type to an existing profile, similar to a Psycannon, but without any rule allowing for the choice of profile. In other words a broken weapon.
If the rule said anything about adding another profile, then there would be no discussion here at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
, despite Rigelds assertions otherwise

So instead of proving me wrong, you just say that I'm wrong.
That's interesting.

grendel083 wrote:Because it can't be both, as types are mutually exclusive.

You keep asserting this falsehood. Please stop

There is no rule stating this. If you disagree, page and para would be useful.

BRB page 50 wrote:A shooting weapon always has one of the following types:
Assault, Heavy, Ordnance,Pistol, Rapid Fire or Salvo.

Bolded the important word. How many Types are weapons allowed to have with permission to otherwise do so?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

No you dont, as mine is the H0 in this instance. The default position. Replacement has to be H1. Without proof of H1 (or evidence disproving H0) , you are not moved from

Your position is not the H0. The H0 is that their is no connection between the Salvo banner and bolters. Your position is H2.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The onus on proving the loss of something (rapid fire) should surely be on your side? You have yet to do so.

I'd say it's on both. Even if you can completely disprove my view, you still have to prove yours is correct.

No you dont, as mine is the H0 in this instance. The default position. Replacement has to be H1. Without proof of H1 (or evidence disproving H0) , you are not moved from H0

What exactly makes your position default? I suggest yours is H1. And still hasn't been proven

grendel083 wrote:
Because it can't be both, as types are mutually exclusive.

You keep asserting this falsehood. Please stop

There is no rule stating this. If you disagree, page and para would be useful.

Very Well, they don't FUNCTION as both. Does not work. No rule allows it. I simply didn't wish to write out the whole thing ever time, much like a previously established abreviation. And there is a rule on this anyway.

Rigeld - show that it is exhaustive. Exactly one. You are assuming a qualifier that does not exist in the text. You can suggest it is implied, but it is not currently present.

Grendel - you prove H1, not H0. Why is it the default? Because addition of a type isnt destructive. Replacement is. Which action is the simpler?

I agree they cannot function with both types. I even said this a few times, and posited ways around this issue. I just disagree that there is a rule stating they are mutually exclusive. That is nto the same as a previously agreed shorthand, especially given it was never agreed upon.

Anyway, personally I see this going nowhere, and could care less how it plays in person (I would let my opponent use it as a functional RF if they wished) so will bow out.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Grendel - you prove H1, not H0. Why is it the default? Because addition of a type isnt destructive. Replacement is. Which action is the simpler?

Simpler makes no difference. You still need to prove your side.
As shown a weapon has one type. You would need an specific rule to add a type, correct?
Does the banner say to add a type?

 grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Grendel - you prove H1, not H0. Why is it the default? Because addition of a type isnt destructive. Replacement is. Which action is the simpler?

Simpler makes no difference. You still need to prove your side.
As shown a weapon has one type. You would need an specific rule to add a type, correct?
Does the banner say to add a type?

me wrote:Anyway, personally I see this going nowhere, and could care less how it plays in person (I would let my opponent use it as a functional RF if they wished) so will bow out.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - show that it is exhaustive. Exactly one. You are assuming a qualifier that does not exist in the text. You can suggest it is implied, but it is not currently present.

It's in that sentence - You're allowed one type. Are you allowed two types?
Using one of your favorite examples,

You're allowed to swap a bolter for one heavy weapon. If you swap another bolter for another heavy weapon, have you broken a rule? Literally every thread you've posted in with a situation like this you've said that yes, that would be breaking a rule.

Are you changing your position?

We are suffering from unprecise rulewriting here.
"Treat X as Y" is always a delicate thing, as it means "Pretend X to be Y".

If they wrote "Treat all boltguns as salvo 2/4 instead of rapid fire" all would be clear.
If they wrote "Treat all boltguns as salvo 2/4 in addition to rapid fire. Choose one of each type before firing." all would be clear as well.

But they didn't. If I am told to treat a Trygon as a Grot, I have to use all rules for a Grot although I know it is a Trygon.
My problem with this rule is, that it doesn't specify which aspect of the boltgun I have to treat as salvo. It does not give me permission to keep the old profile. Neither does it provide me with a new one.

My strict interpretation would be:

Outside 6" a boltgun is 24" (insert the full profile here). Within 6" it is just salvo 2/4. No strength, no range, no ap.

So we would have a non-functional weapon.

So I think we can all agree that salvo 2/4 refers to the weapon type. And although the weapon should keep the rapid fire type the rule fails to give me permission to use it. It has told me to pretend it to be a salvo 2/4 weapon (contextual implication: rather than a rapid fire weapon). If I could choose between both types, they would have told me so.