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.

The wording is vague enough to be argued either way, lets shift this to a HIWPI argument instead of trying to argue the definition of "its" as that will just go in circles.

Well there's not really much of a HIWPI argument, it's just yes/no/flip a coin.

RAI-wise, it seems harsh to say that normal special rules, AM orders and stuff like that all confer, but nebuloscopes don't.

So, for

This Act of Faith can be used in the Shooting phase. If successful, all weapons in the Retributors unit gain the Rending special rule until the end of the current phase.

We can agree that it does indeed get the bonus?

As the weapon is fired by a model in the Unit, it must be part of "all weapons in the Unit" right? (for that Turn)

As for the "its", i can also see both sides.

A) On the Turn that the Tomb blade is manning the Quad Gun, "its" weapon for that phase is the Quad gun.
B) The Nebulascope special rule says "its ranged weapons". The Quad Gun is not included in that list at the beginning of the game.

I'd HIWPI "A". Only because Retributors, Vindicaires and other can, it would seem unusual to not let the Tomblade rule apply.

This Act of Faith can be used in the Shooting phase. If successful, all weapons in the Retributors unit gain the Rending special rule until the end of the current phase

I wouldn't agree that the quad gun is in the unit though. They may make use of it, but it is still it's own unit and it never joins or otherwise becomes part of their unit. They are just allowed to fire it instead of one of the guns in their unit.

I can't see anywhere in the BRB that says the quad gun becomes part of the unit. So it stands that it is a seperate unit, that may provide a utility to those near it.

I'd HIWPI "A". Only because Retributors, Vindicaires and other can, it would seem unusual to not let the Tomblade rule apply

I don't think the vindicare should factor into this as it is the very clear exception. It is stated in his rules no matter what he fires, no matter if he is snap shooting, he still has ignores cover, on every single shot. It comes from his wargear and clearly states that every shot he makes get's ignores cover (doesn't mention weapons). Since it's not an option, the would have just given ignores cover to his weapons if they wanted to. He get's to be special because y'know, he's the mac daddy of all snipers.

I'd lean towards B for tomb blades, as it is done in list building, so pregame, Check tomb blades weapons, If it has nebuloscope, these now have ignores cover. You don't get to wait until you man something to give out the rule. As for retributors unless im missing something, RAW, the quad gun is never part of the unit, just fired due to a model in base contact not using their weapon.

So im not sold on them giving benefits to the quad guns.

harkequin wrote:

This Act of Faith can be used in the Shooting phase. If successful, all weapons in the Retributors unit gain the Rending special rule until the end of the current phase

I wouldn't agree that the quad gun is in the unit though. They may make use of it, but it is still it's own unit and it never joins or otherwise becomes part of their unit. They are just allowed to fire it instead of one of the guns in their unit.

I can't see anywhere in the BRB that says the quad gun becomes part of the unit. So it stands that it is a seperate unit, that may provide a utility to those near it.

I'd HIWPI "A". Only because Retributors, Vindicaires and other can, it would seem unusual to not let the Tomblade rule apply

I don't think the vindicare should factor into this as it is the very clear exception. It is stated in his rules no matter what he fires, no matter if he is snap shooting, he still has ignores cover, on every single shot. It comes from his wargear and clearly states that every shot he makes get's ignores cover (doesn't mention weapons). Since it's not an option, the would have just given ignores cover to his weapons if they wanted to. He get's to be special because y'know, he's the mac daddy of all snipers.

I'd lean towards B for tomb blades, as it is done in list building, so pregame, Check tomb blades weapons, If it has nebuloscope, these now have ignores cover. You don't get to wait until you man something to give out the rule. As for retributors unless im missing something, RAW, the quad gun is never part of the unit, just fired due to a model in base contact not using their weapon.

So im not sold on them giving benefits to the quad guns.

The Quad gun is not a Unit in the first place. There is no such thing as a Unit: Gun Emplacement. Fortifications are blurry themselves.

As for firing the weapon that is the Quad Gun, there has been enough support for this on both sides:

 Grey Templar wrote:
All rules on the model apply to the Quad-gun. The model is the one who is shooting, and all special rules they have apply.

 deviantduck wrote:
The quad gun is fired instead of the model's other weapons, as a normal shooting attack. As a normal shooting attack, the quad gun is a ranged weapon of the model firing it and gains bonuses from the model's special rules.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
The rules for gun emplacements don't say anything about using the firing model's ballistic skill, only that it may fire the weapon instead of its own, following the normal rules for shooting.

The normal rules for shooting tell you to choose a weapon the modern is equipped with, but we know the model is not equipped with a Quad Gun. The rules for gun emplacements however allow us to fire the weapon instead of the model's own weapon, so the model is allowed to fire in this case a Quad Gun instead.

That does not make the Quad Gun the model's weapon, though; it is explicitly fired "instead of (the model's) own weapon", not " as if it were the model's weapon ".

 Mr. Shine wrote:
The gun emplacement rules are clear on this. Follow the normal rules for shooting, with the exception granted to allow e model to fire the Quad Gun instead of its own weapon.

The Quad gun is still selected in step 3. Select a Weapon. It may not be an "equipped" weapon (<- point of contention) but it is still "a weapon in the Unit" (how you define that is going to be completely arbitrary)

But i doubt you could use your Balistic Skill and fire the weapon if it was not "a weapon in the Unit".

The model [Sister of Battle] is firing (following the shooting sequence) with weapon [Quad Gun]

This Act of Faith can be used in the Shooting phase. If successful, all weapons in the Retributors unit gain the Rending special rule until the end of the current phase

The rule is clear upon which of the weapons fired in that Phase get the special rule.

Nebulascope rules might not be as clear, will need to check up on the RaW for a quote.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, here we go:

If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope, all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule.

And in the end, the ambiguity of "its ranged weapons" is clear.

"its ranged weapons" as a one-time occurrence (say before the game starts).
or
"its ranged weapons" as a RaW constant: any weapons in "its" possession during the game will have the USR.

And secondly if the Quad Gun ever becomes part of "its ranged weapons" (Also unclear)


To argue the second point a bit further:
Shrouded:"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover save as being 2 points better than normal."

Is that the Cover Save it had at the beginning of the game?
Or would you agree that the definition of "Its" cover save applies to the cover save the model has at that specific time during the game?

Same example in "Skilled Rider" if your Jink save is modified.
Same for Skyfire if your Normal BS is modified.
etc

If the people saying this isn't possible, then really any abilities that any models have to alter a shooting attack is moot.

A lot of Tau are cheaters I guess when they use a buffmander to give their crisis suits, drones unit ignore cover and re-roll to hit.

Speaking of which could a buffmander with a drone controller have his drone man the quad gun? BS5 with ignores cover?

This thread is for Tomb blades using the Quad gun. If you want to look at all the interactions between SR's and gun emplacements please create a separate thread. Also please be mindful of how you say things not just what you say. You shouldn't be saying that someone else is stating anything unless you have a quote of them saying exactly that. Argue the points not the person, as soon as you start arguing the person you loose credibility.

If you are going to count a non squad weapon as part of the squads weapons, its off for a few reasons, one being that:

by that logic that the quad gun ignores cover for tomb guard,

it would also then ignore cover from an opponent using it.

this is wrong OFC, but it shows what follows when you call a weapon like the quad gun, which is not the units weapon, one of that units weapons.

yes this does mean sisters players generally are doing it wrong as well.


if special rules affect the units weapons, then they only effect the *Units* weapons, the model doesnt have the rule, so cannot confer it to the emplacement as that emplacement only gains benifits from the *models* special rules.


so vindicare can ignore cover and anything he shoots, because thats what the rules say.

sisters and necrons can only ignore cover/ect with their *units* weapons.

special rules that affect the models transfer to the quad gun. special rules that only effect the units weapons, only affect the units weapons.

"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons."

"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."

Assuming both quotes are correct, it's obvious that the Nebuloscope cannot apply. The Emplacement is fired "instead of firing its own weapons" and the nebuloscope applys to "all of its ranged weapons".

"its" in both sentences refers to the same thing (the firing model), so the Quad Gun is fired instead of the firing model's own weapons - and the firing model's own weapons are the ones the Nebuloscope works with.

rigeld2 wrote:
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons."

"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."

Assuming both quotes are correct, it's obvious that the Nebuloscope cannot apply. The Emplacement is fired "instead of firing its own weapons" and the nebuloscope applys to "all of its ranged weapons".

"its" in both sentences refers to the same thing (the firing model), so the Quad Gun is fired instead of the firing model's own weapons - and the firing model's own weapons are the ones the Nebuloscope works with.

rigeld2 has it, more succinctly put then I worded it too.

Basically the two clauses are actually incompatible.

after all, if the quad gun is a "squad weapon" how can it be fired "instead of (a squad) weapon" ?

*edit for SP

Naaris:

If the people saying this isn't possible, then really any abilities that any models have to alter a shooting attack is moot.

A lot of Tau are cheaters I guess when they use a buffmander to give their crisis suits, drones unit ignore cover and re-roll to hit.

Speaking of which could a buffmander with a drone controller have his drone man the quad gun? BS5 with ignores cover?

On the subject of Tau, Marker lights "Scour: All weapons fired at the target as part of this Shooting attack gain the Ignores Cover special rule"

And , Multi-spectrum suite "all Shooting attacks made by other models in his unit gain the Ignores Cover special rule until the end of the current phase."

So my point still stands, A model having Ignores cover does literally nothing.


Black Talos:

The Quad gun is not a Unit in the first place. There is no such thing as a Unit: Gun Emplacement. Fortifications are blurry themselves.

You are absolutely 100% right, I had no idea. However you're still never given permission for the gun emplacement to be part of your unit, for all intents and purposes, it isnt a unit, nor is it part of a unit, it is a thing with a stat line and it can be charged/assaulted. It's interesting.

To argue the second point a bit further:
Shrouded:"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover save as being 2 points better than normal."

Is that the Cover Save it had at the beginning of the game?
Or would you agree that the definition of "Its" cover save applies to the cover save the model has at that specific time during the game?

Fair point, I was just remarking that since, the nebuloscope it purely part of list building, it's not necessarily analogous to shrouded, which is part of game play and continually interacted with throughout. Nebuloscope just gives the weapons ignores cover, the tomb blade weapons are listed on its data sheet.

As for the quad gun, It may be fired, instead of one of it's ranged weapons, meaning that the quad is not in fact a weapon of the squad. Otherwise, they would have written, "as one of it's ranged weapons", or "instead of another one of its ranged weapons"

No where in the game AFAIK are any models expressly given a new weapon, all the weapons they have are listed on their data sheet, You have to be given permission to count a new weapon as one of it's weapons.

I think I got everything, If i missed something, let me know.

I support which ever view clearly violates rai, because this game is already broken and sloppy and inconsistent. So I believe in the dick move that rule lawyers stretch the logic of rules so they can abuse a mechanic of the game because we need more of this to be exposed and to show everyone how cruddy this game really is. I want to see more people cheat and more people rage quit.

and as a forge the bull$ hit narrative point of view explanation, the necrons strap that cheapo nebuloscope to quadgun thereby confer its targeting ability to ignore cover.

 Filch wrote:
I support which ever view clearly violates rai, because this game is already broken and sloppy and inconsistent. So I believe in the dick move that rule lawyers stretch the logic of rules so they can abuse a mechanic of the game because we need more of this to be exposed and to show everyone how cruddy this game really is. I want to see more people cheat and more people rage quit.

and as a forge the bull$ hit narrative point of view explanation, the necrons strap that cheapo nebuloscope to quadgun thereby confer its targeting ability to ignore cover.

That really isn't a good thing - not in this thread, and not in real life either.

A more reasoned approach will always net you better results - both in this thread, and in real life.

rigeld2 wrote:
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons."

"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."

Assuming both quotes are correct, it's obvious that the Nebuloscope cannot apply. The Emplacement is fired "instead of firing its own weapons" and the nebuloscope applys to "all of its ranged weapons".

"its" in both sentences refers to the same thing (the firing model), so the Quad Gun is fired instead of the firing model's own weapons - and the firing model's own weapons are the ones the Nebuloscope works with.

Complete non-sequitur. The Nebuloscope rule does not say it applies to "all of its own ranged weapons", it says "all of its ranged weapons." You are inserting a concept of ownership into the rule that does not exist RAW.

When firing a quad gun, what is its ranged weapon for that shooting attack? Its ranged weapon is the quad gun.

It comes down to the definition of "its" which despite what all the anti-Necron people want to believe, does not require the Tomb Blade to own or otherwise be the proprietor of the quad gun. If it is using the quad gun, then it is perfectly grammatically valid to say its ranged weapon is the quad gun

So you're using different definitions of "its" for the two sentences?

Maybe you could support your stance with something other than "You're wrong." The quad gun is fired instead of its own weapons.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're using different definitions of "its" for the two sentences?

Maybe you could support your stance with something other than "You're wrong." The quad gun is fired instead of its own weapons.

No, I'm using just one definition of "its". The possessive form of "it" where "it" is a pronoun for the tomb blade. Perfectly straightforward.

It is grammatically valid to say "its ranged weapon is the quad gun", because it is using the quad gun as its ranged weapon for that attack. If the quad gun is its ranged weapon, then it has the Ignores Cover special rule. The quad gun has a ranged weapon profile and is fired by the Tomb Blade, so there is no denying that it is its ranged weapon.

The quad gun is not "its own weapon" but that doesn't matter, because the nebuloscope does not require the "own" part of that phrase. Without the "own" it has explicit permission to apply Ignores Cover to all ranged weapons that it uses. It's worth noting the "all" in "all of its ranged weapons" because only Tomb Blades can take nebuloscopes, and they can only have one ranged weapon in their profile.

Tekron wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're using different definitions of "its" for the two sentences?

Maybe you could support your stance with something other than "You're wrong." The quad gun is fired instead of its own weapons.

No, I'm using just one definition of "its". The possessive form of "it" where "it" is a pronoun for the tomb blade. Perfectly straightforward.

If you're using the same definition for both, then they both refer to the same thing.
And the quad gun rules explicitly say that it (the tomb blade) fires them instead of its own weapons (where you have permission to apply Ignores Cover).

It is grammatically valid to say "its ranged weapon is the quad gun", because it is using the quad gun as its ranged weapon for that attack.

No, it's not. Its is, by definition, possessive. The Tomb Blade does not possess the quad gun but has permission to fire it.

If the quad gun is its ranged weapon, then it has the Ignores Cover special rule. The quad gun has a ranged weapon profile and is fired by the Tomb Blade, so there is no denying that it is its ranged weapon.

There is, actually. Since its is possessive and all.

The quad gun is not "its own weapon" but that doesn't matter, because the nebuloscope does not require the "own" part of that phrase. Without the "own" it has explicit permission to apply Ignores Cover to all ranged weapons that it uses. It's worth noting the "all" in "all of its ranged weapons" because only Tomb Blades can take nebuloscopes, and they can only have one ranged weapon in their profile.

It's actually not worth noting - GW words things like that all the time. For example, only Centurions can have Grav Cannons, which are Salvo. Centurions have Slow and Purposeful, so them being Salvo does literally nothing - they might as well be Assault.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tekron wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're using different definitions of "its" for the two sentences?

Maybe you could support your stance with something other than "You're wrong." The quad gun is fired instead of its own weapons.

No, I'm using just one definition of "its". The possessive form of "it" where "it" is a pronoun for the tomb blade. Perfectly straightforward.

If you're using the same definition for both, then they both refer to the same thing.
And the quad gun rules explicitly say that it (the tomb blade) fires them instead of its own weapons (where you have permission to apply Ignores Cover).

It is grammatically valid to say "its ranged weapon is the quad gun", because it is using the quad gun as its ranged weapon for that attack.

No, it's not. Its is, by definition, possessive. The Tomb Blade does not possess the quad gun but has permission to fire it.

If the quad gun is its ranged weapon, then it has the Ignores Cover special rule. The quad gun has a ranged weapon profile and is fired by the Tomb Blade, so there is no denying that it is its ranged weapon.

There is, actually. Since its is possessive and all.

Another person who does not understand what possessive means in grammar. Using a possessive form does not require ownership in the sense you are describing, it only requires association. The Tomb Blade does possess the quad gun for the purpose of firing it. The Tomb Blade does not own it in the sense that it is listed on its wargear profile, but that is not required for a possessive relationship between the two.

Tekron wrote:
You are inserting a concept of ownership into the rule that does not exist RAW.

Prove it does not - it is not incorrect. You are insisting only a specific grammatical concept is valid, which only works if you completely ignore the known context of the situation as well as the clear distinction the rules for firing an emplaced weapon states between a model's own weapons and in this case the Quad Gun.

When firing a quad gun, what is its ranged weapon for that shooting attack? Its ranged weapon is the quad gun.

It's just as (and in fact specifically more) correct to say this in terms of which weapon it is using for that shooting attack. In using "its" you are also implying possessive ownership while, yes, also being grammatically correct. The fact that using "its" in this way does that, combined with the fact we know the model is neither equipped with nor owns the Quad Gun, makes this incorrect.

It comes down to the definition of "its" which despite what all the anti-Necron people want to believe, does not require the Tomb Blade to own or otherwise be the proprietor of the quad gun. If it is using the quad gun, then it is perfectly grammatically valid to say its ranged weapon is the quad gun

Only if you do not know the Quad Gun is not actually owned or possessed by the model. Again, using the car example, if I were borrowing your car and a police officer asked me, "Step out of your car please" I would clarify that it is not mine. We however do know that the Quad Gun is not the model's, and is in fact (as explicitly stated) fired instead of the model's own weapons.

I understand your argument but you are ignoring the implication of that grammatical construct and the known context of the situation. I do not need to belittle you for a difference of opinion however, so would ask that you do not do the same to me, or others.

 Alpharius wrote:

 Filch wrote:
I support which ever view clearly violates rai, because this game is already broken and sloppy and inconsistent. So I believe in the dick move that rule lawyers stretch the logic of rules so they can abuse a mechanic of the game because we need more of this to be exposed and to show everyone how cruddy this game really is. I want to see more people cheat and more people rage quit.

and as a forge the bull$ hit narrative point of view explanation, the necrons strap that cheapo nebuloscope to quadgun thereby confer its targeting ability to ignore cover.

That really isn't a good thing - not in this thread, and not in real life either.

A more reasoned approach will always net you better results - both in this thread, and in real life.

Have you seen what transpired after i wrote this? an argument over grammar and "its"

seriously, the rules are badly written and needs to be brought to GWs attention to errata.

Personally, i dont like necron but i support the gross exploitation of GWs beer and pretzel game rules. I hope many people buy tomb blades and quad gun to exploit this and then they errata this and it becomes invalid so these cheese players wasted their time and money.

 Filch wrote:

Have you seen what transpired after i wrote this? an argument over grammar and "its"

seriously, the rules are badly written and needs to be brought to GWs attention to errata.

Personally, i dont like necron but i support the gross exploitation of GWs beer and pretzel game rules. I hope many people buy tomb blades and quad gun to exploit this and then they errata this and it becomes invalid so these cheese players wasted their time and money.

Please don't try and get this thread locked.
Thanks.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tekron wrote:
Another person who does not understand what possessive means in grammar. Using a possessive form does not require ownership in the sense you are describing, it only requires association. The Tomb Blade does possess the quad gun for the purpose of firing it. The Tomb Blade does not own it in the sense that it is listed on its wargear profile, but that is not required for a possessive relationship between the two.

Asserting that "its" means any weapon you decide to associate with the Tomb Blade is irrelevant. We know, for a fact, that the Tomb Blade is not firing its own weapon. Since the rule only applies to its weapons, and it's not firing its own weapons, the weapon it is firing cannot benefit from a rule that benefits its weapons.
The Tomb Blade doesn't possess the Quad Gun in any fashion. At all. Ever. Prove otherwise.

 Filch wrote:
Have you seen what transpired after i wrote this? an argument over grammar and "its"

seriously, the rules are badly written and needs to be brought to GWs attention to errata.

Personally, i dont like necron but i support the gross exploitation of GWs beer and pretzel game rules. I hope many people buy tomb blades and quad gun to exploit this and then they errata this and it becomes invalid so these cheese players wasted their time and money.

This is a rules discussion forum. If you don't want to discuss the rules then I suggest you go elsewhere. I'm here for a robust discussion of what we can work with based on what the rules say but I don't however play games to have robust discussions like this.

Don't confuse a RAW discussion with GAP (games as played) or HIWPI.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Tekron wrote:
You are inserting a concept of ownership into the rule that does not exist RAW.

Prove it does not - it is not incorrect. You are insisting only a specific grammatical concept is valid, which only works if you completely ignore the known context of the situation as well as the clear distinction the rules for firing an emplaced weapon states between a model's own weapons and in this case the Quad Gun.

You want me to prove there is no concept of ownership? Well here is the nebuloscope rule:

"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."

There. Proven. No concept of ownership whatsoever.

When firing a quad gun, what is its ranged weapon for that shooting attack? Its ranged weapon is the quad gun.

It's just as (and in fact specifically more) correct to say this in terms of which weapon it is using for that shooting attack. In using "its" you are also implying possessive ownership while, yes, also being grammatically correct. The fact that using "its" in this way does that, combined with the fact we know the model is neither equipped with nor owns the Quad Gun, makes this incorrect.

So you admit it is grammatically correct. Which it obviously is as the sentence works perfectly well. But even though I have drawn a clear chain of permission to apply the ignores cover rule using this grammatically correct sentence, you assert that it does not fulfil the non-existent requirement of "equipped" or "owned".

You are wishing for an extra word in the rule, but it doesn't exist.

It comes down to the definition of "its" which despite what all the anti-Necron people want to believe, does not require the Tomb Blade to own or otherwise be the proprietor of the quad gun. If it is using the quad gun, then it is perfectly grammatically valid to say its ranged weapon is the quad gun

Only if you do not know the Quad Gun is not actually owned or possessed by the model. Again, using the car example, if I were borrowing your car and a police officer asked me, "Step out of your car please" I would clarify that it is not mine. We however do know that the Quad Gun is not the model's, and is in fact (as explicitly stated) fired instead of the model's own weapons.

The quad gun is not owned by the model, but again, grammatically speaking it does possess it when using it. To deny this is to deny the basic reality of the English language. Possessive language applies based on association, it is not limited to ownership. Do I have to start constructing example sentences where possessive nouns are used without implied ownership for you to believe this?

I understand your argument but you are ignoring the implication of that grammatical construct and the known context of the situation. I do not need to belittle you for a difference of opinion however, so would ask that you do not do the same to me, or others.

I do not need to worry about context or implication when I have a clear chain of permission to use a special rule. You are trying to impose a limitation that does not explicitly exist. You even seem to admit it does not explicitly exist. So you are asking to impose the restriction from context and implication, which is firmly in RAI territory.

If you don't need to belittle me, then I'd suggest you cut out using the facepalm emoticon when presented with an argument that you disagree with.

Tekron,

"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."

The above can be re-written: "If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of [the models] ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."

Do you agree with that modified quote? If not why?

Additionally,

"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting"

THe above can be re-written: "One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [the gun emplacement] instead of firing [the model's] own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting"

Again do you agree? If not, why?

Tekron wrote:
You want me to prove there is no concept of ownership? Well here is the nebuloscope rule:

"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."

There. Proven. No concept of ownership whatsoever.

Except by using "its" you are implying (by common English language usage) ownership. We know the model is only using the Quad Gun and does not own it, therefore it is incorrect to say it is firing its Quad Gun and, as the rules for emplaced weapons say, it is correct to say it is firing the Quad Gun instead of its own weapons.

So you admit it is grammatically correct. Which it obviously is as the sentence works perfectly well. But even though I have drawn a clear chain of permission to apply the ignores cover rule using this grammatically correct sentence, you assert that it does not fulfil the non-existent requirement of "equipped" or "owned".

You are wishing for an extra word in the rule, but it doesn't exist.

It is grammatically correct in an entirely different context to the situation we are discussing. We know the Quad Gun is being fired instead of the model's own weapons. The rules tell us this. You are ignoring the context the rules provide and describing a model's Quad Gun shooting attack as if you have no knowedge it is fired "instead of (the model's) own weapons).

The quad gun is not owned by the model, but again, grammatically speaking it does possess it when using it. To deny this is to deny the basic reality of the English language. Possessive language applies based on association, it is not limited to ownership. Do I have to start constructing example sentences where possessive nouns are used without implied ownership for you to believe this?

You're ignoring basic reality of the English language. If I know the apple you just ate was actually Joe's apple I wouldn't say you just ate your apple for lunch. The rules tell us the Quad Gun is being "fired instead of (the model's) own weapon".

If you don't need to belittle me, then I'd suggest you cut out using the facepalm emoticon when presented with an argument that you disagree with.

I facepalmed because you were refusing to outright state your argument before finally stating an argument against something I had mentioned an entire page earlier. As I recall your original argument was based on an assumption that the model somehow must be equipped with the Quad Gun, so please don't try accusing me of looking for words in the rules that aren't there.

You're using a different definition of "its" in the two rules and haven't explained why (in fact, you said you aren't, but you definitely are).

The Quad Gun rule says you are firing it instead of weapons you possess. Meaning you do not, in fact, possess the Quad Gun.

Go ahead and tell me I don't understand English, or call my understanding of grammar into question again - until you can actually prove the possession (not just assert it) your stance is incorrect.

 Happyjew wrote:
Tekron,

"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."

The above can be re-written: "If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of [the models] ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."

Do you agree with that modified quote? If not why?

Additionally,

"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting"

THe above can be re-written: "One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [the gun emplacement] instead of firing [the model's] own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting"

Again do you agree? If not, why?

Yes, I agree that replacing pronouns with nouns forms clunky but correct sentences.

The issue is, "all of [the models] ranged weapons" includes the quad gun when the model is firing it. The model is not required to own the ranged weapons in the sentence.

So the Quad Gun is somehow the models weapon?

Care to actually cite a rule? That'd be nice to see from you for once.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're using a different definition of "its" in the two rules and haven't explained why (in fact, you said you aren't, but you definitely are).

Definitely not using two definitions of "its", as I am only aware of one.

The Quad Gun rule says you are firing it instead of weapons you possess. Meaning you do not, in fact, possess the Quad Gun.

No, the rule doesn't say "possess", and in this discussion "possess" refers to the linguistic concept, not ownership.

Go ahead and tell me I don't understand English, or call my understanding of grammar into question again - until you can actually prove the possession (not just assert it) your stance is incorrect.

If I can form a grammatically correct sentence using the possessive form of "it" then I prove possession. Yes or no?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
So the Quad Gun is somehow the models weapon?

Care to actually cite a rule? That'd be nice to see from you for once.

Yes, the quad gun is the models weapon when it is firing that weapon.

I have already cited the only rule that matters multiple times:

"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."

Tekron wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You're using a different definition of "its" in the two rules and haven't explained why (in fact, you said you aren't, but you definitely are).

Definitely not using two definitions of "its", as I am only aware of one.

The Quad Gun rule says you are firing it instead of weapons you possess. Meaning you do not, in fact, possess the Quad Gun.

No, the rule doesn't say "possess", and in this discussion "possess" refers to the linguistic concept, not ownership.

How are, using your definition and argument, "instead of weapons you possess" and "instead of its own weapon" different?

Go ahead and tell me I don't understand English, or call my understanding of grammar into question again - until you can actually prove the possession (not just assert it) your stance is incorrect.

If I can form a grammatically correct sentence using the possessive form of "it" then I prove possession. Yes or no?

No. You have to do so using actual rules since, you know, this is a rules discussion.

rigeld2 wrote:
So the Quad Gun is somehow the models weapon?

Care to actually cite a rule? That'd be nice to see from you for once.

Yes, the quad gun is the models weapon when it is firing that weapon.

I have already cited the only rule that matters multiple times:

"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."

The quoted rule does not prove the underlined statement.
Please, using rules, prove the underlined statement.