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.

Can a Grav Centurion fire his Grav Cannon + Grav Amp as well as the Quadgun?

I don't see why being able to fire 2 weapons wouldn't allow you to shoot an emplaced weapon

The Gun Emplacement rules are unclear.
They don't take into account models that can fire more than one weapon.
So... Grey area. Discuss with opponent.

How is it a grey area? it just to tells you to fire the quad gun in place of the models weapon. if he has 2 weapons and the ability to fire 2 weapons, then you replace 1 with the quad gun, and fire both.

"Instead of his own weapon"
Not "Instead of one of his own weapons". That's "weapon" singular.

You're making the assumption that it replaces one weapon, and you can choose which.

Likewise it doesn't state it replaces ALL weapons.

The rule quite literally doesn't take into account models that can fire more than one weapon. So yes, grey area.
It only takes into account a model armed with a single weapon, able to fire a single weapon.

I would just like to point out this makes an Eldar Avatar on a weapon emplacement even better. Think for a moment, first I shoot your vehicle with a lascannon as it gets too close to me, hitting on twos, re-rollable, now I fire my melta weapon if the las cannon didn't kill you already. Now the squishy interior is all nice and open for an assault. Or, a 1 in 6 chance I'll admit, but first I fire my melta into your vehicle, pop it, fire a quad gun into the troops, then assault them. Oh good times indeed.

going to have to disagree with you on that one Grendel.

you have two weapons to choose from, as such, and mainly due to there being no restriction placed on the permission to do so, you can choose which of your weapons to forgo shooting in favour of shooting the quad.

you've said it yourself, it refers to a singular weapon, not plural, it would be no different for a MC like a riptide to wander over and use it.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
going to have to disagree with you on that one Grendel.

you have two weapons to choose from, as such, and mainly due to there being no restriction placed on the permission to do so, you can choose which of your weapons to forgo shooting in favour of shooting the quad.

you've said it yourself, it refers to a singular weapon, not plural, it would be no different for a MC like a riptide to wander over and use it.

Where's the choice?
What part of the rule hints that you can choose between weapons?
All weapons? One weapon? Doesn't say either of those.

It's not singular as in "one of the models weapons" it's singular as in the rule only accounts for a model with one weapon.
There's no indication how it interacts with models with more than one weapon, or indeed the ability to fire more than one.
It's pure assumption and guess work.

We can guess at "one of the models weapons" and it seems like a good guess. But it is a guess. Like I said, grey area.

"One model in base contact with the gun emplacement can
fire it instead of his own weapon, following the normal rules
for shooting. The type of weapon on the gun emplacement
depends on the model that you're using to represent it - some
shooting weapon profiles can be found starting on page 55. If a
model is in cover behind a gun emplacement, it has a4+ cover
save. The gun emplacement can be shot at and attacked in close
combat. It is hit automatically in close combat and has the
following profile:" I agree that this leaves a lot of ambiguity. It states instead of his own weapon, meaning you can't fire your own weapon, however it doesn't state "all" your weapons.

In a sea of ambiguous rules, this one is pretty clear. I don't see an arguable grey area at all.

danny1995 wrote:
I would just like to point out this makes an Eldar Avatar on a weapon emplacement even better. Think for a moment, first I shoot your vehicle with a lascannon as it gets too close to me, hitting on twos, re-rollable, now I fire my melta weapon if the las cannon didn't kill you already. Now the squishy interior is all nice and open for an assault. Or, a 1 in 6 chance I'll admit, but first I fire my melta into your vehicle, pop it, fire a quad gun into the troops, then assault them. Oh good times indeed.

No, you can't pop the vehicle then shoot the troops. You can pop it and then assault, but since all fire declaration is simultaneous (for one unit) and the resolution is also, you can't shoot a unit that wasn't on the board.

rigeld2 wrote:

danny1995 wrote:
I would just like to point out this makes an Eldar Avatar on a weapon emplacement even better. Think for a moment, first I shoot your vehicle with a lascannon as it gets too close to me, hitting on twos, re-rollable, now I fire my melta weapon if the las cannon didn't kill you already. Now the squishy interior is all nice and open for an assault. Or, a 1 in 6 chance I'll admit, but first I fire my melta into your vehicle, pop it, fire a quad gun into the troops, then assault them. Oh good times indeed.

No, you can't pop the vehicle then shoot the troops. You can pop it and then assault, but since all fire declaration is simultaneous (for one unit) and the resolution is also, you can't shoot a unit that wasn't on the board.

The 1 in 6 chance I speak of is split fire from warlord trait.

split fire doesnt work either.

You have to declare split fire targets before you fire any of your weapons, therefore you could not shoot the guys inside since they are still inside the vehicle.



Also, i agree with it being a grey area, but with a much larger lean towards the being able to fire the quad and a second weapon if you have the ability to do so.

danny1995 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

danny1995 wrote:
I would just like to point out this makes an Eldar Avatar on a weapon emplacement even better. Think for a moment, first I shoot your vehicle with a lascannon as it gets too close to me, hitting on twos, re-rollable, now I fire my melta weapon if the las cannon didn't kill you already. Now the squishy interior is all nice and open for an assault. Or, a 1 in 6 chance I'll admit, but first I fire my melta into your vehicle, pop it, fire a quad gun into the troops, then assault them. Oh good times indeed.

No, you can't pop the vehicle then shoot the troops. You can pop it and then assault, but since all fire declaration is simultaneous (for one unit) and the resolution is also, you can't shoot a unit that wasn't on the board.

The 1 in 6 chance I speak of is split fire from warlord trait.

You should re-read the Split Fire rule. It doesn't allow a single model to split fire, and all attacks from a unit *still* have to be declared at the same time.

Riptides and R'varnas benefit the most from being able to use a quadgun if it doesn't replace all of your weapons, since they are MC and also have Multitrackers so they can fire up to 3 weapons, while only coming with 2.

Rigeld2,
If I remember to do so when I get home I shall take a closer look at the rules but I sort of have a flicking of memory that the sequence used by Split Fire contained something very unusual given how it informs us to resolve one shooting attack before resolving the rest and how it would allow the Split Fire model to reach the nominate target step prior, allowing the rest of the unit to nominate another target when they reach this step. Should this flicker of memory be accurate then the timing does create some wriggle room for arguing that the unit inside the transport can be nominated by the rest of the unit after the split firing model pops it.

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
If I remember to do so when I get home I shall take a closer look at the rules but I sort of have a flicking of memory that the sequence used by Split Fire contained something very unusual given how it informs us to resolve one shooting attack before resolving the rest and how it would allow the Split Fire model to reach the nominate target step prior, allowing the rest of the unit to nominate another target when they reach this step. Should this flicker of memory be accurate then the timing does create some wriggle room for arguing that the unit inside the transport can be nominated by the rest of the unit after the split firing model pops it.

Go ahead, but to save some time

Page 42 – Split Fire
Change the last sentence to “Once this shooting attack has
been resolved, resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of
the unit. These must be at a different target and may not be a
unit forced to disembark from any Transport that has been
Wrecked or suffered an Explodes! result due to the Split Firing
unit’s initial shooting attack.”

Ah, thanks Happyjew.

That piece of Errata does seem to highlight that the original vague memories where correct. It suggests that the Split Fire Rule does allow the rest of the unit to nominate a target after the first model has completely resolved their attack. It goes ahead to create an additional restriction on whom can be targeted at this point, designed specifically to get rid of the shooting at freshly disembarked troop angle, but there are still unusual situations that this seeming 'resolve one model then resolve the rest' order could create.

Two which come to mind and a question on 'what prevents these situations?:'
Blowing up a transport or building to expose Line of Sight blocked models behind
Destroying a single model, or small group if the Split Fire model fires enough shots, to prevent a cover save to the unit behind

"Instead of firing his own weapon". Yep, his hurricane bolter is his own weapon. He then fires the Grav cannon that he also has, and is allowed to shoot with.

I don't see the problem honestly.