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.

 Happyjew wrote:
"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?

I agree to reading it in this same way. And:

 Happyjew wrote:
"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?

I also agree with this.
I can also see what Tekron is arguing and i can partially agree:

What can we conclude from the above?
[the model] is firing the Quad Gun instead of his weapon. Do you agree with this?

Now, on a Turn that the model is firing the Quad Gun (instead of his weapon), is the Quad Gun a ranged weapon that the tomb blade is using?
[the model] ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule.

The above can be validated: [the model] is firing the QG instead of it's own weapons. [the model] ranged weapons get Ignore Cover.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

It is a simple question:
What rules do you follow when a model fires the Quad Gun?
(I will not quote the entire shooting phase to prove the underlined statement)

When you follow said shooting phase, does the Quad Gun [model] follow the shooting phase? Or is it the Tomb Blade [model]?
If it is (in case you disagree) the Tomb Blade [model] that follows the shooting phase, which of it's weapons is it firing?

As such, i will quote this for support:

"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 RaW quoted is instructing you, verbatim, to "following the normal rules for shooting" while using the quad gun "instead" of your own weapon. What do you do when you follow the normal rules for shooting? You fire your weapon.

In which case, the nebuloscope's "all of its ranged weapons", at that point in time, will apply. As the Quad Gun is "its" range weapon for that phase.

Ultimately, if there is only one question i would like you to answer, it is this one:
What ranged weapon is the [model] shooting?

(Which would of course stem: Why is the ranged weapon shot by the [model] not "its" ranged weapon? )

Well I know which way I'll play it, and it's not the way that encourages people to have a gun emplacement manned by a fast jet-bike unit that is supposed to have its pilot slaved to the vehicle and doesn't appear to have movable hands. Because that would be ridiculous.

 BlackTalos wrote:
If it is (in case you disagree) the Tomb Blade [model] that follows the shooting phase, which of it's weapons is it firing?

None of them. It's firing the Quad Gun instead of its own weapons. As the rule you quoted states:

As such, i will quote this for support:

"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 RaW quoted is instructing you, verbatim, to "following the normal rules for shooting" while using the quad gun "instead" of your own weapon. What do you do when you follow the normal rules for shooting? You fire your weapon.

You cannot be firing your own weapon. You're firing the Quad Gun which the rules explicitly - and you even emphasized - say that you do instead of firing your own weapon. You cannot fire your weapon instead of firing your own weapon.

What ranged weapon is the [model] shooting?

(Which would of course stem: Why is the ranged weapon shot by the [model] not "its" ranged weapon? )

The Quad Gun.
Because the rules explicitly say it's not. You can tell because it says "instead of its own weapon".

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
If it is (in case you disagree) the Tomb Blade [model] that follows the shooting phase, which of it's weapons is it firing?

None of them. It's firing the Quad Gun instead of its own weapons. As the rule you quoted states:
.

Which makes the Quad gun its weapon for the purposes of that shooting attack.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
If it is (in case you disagree) the Tomb Blade [model] that follows the shooting phase, which of it's weapons is it firing?

None of them. It's firing the Quad Gun instead of its own weapons. As the rule you quoted states:
.

Which makes the Quad gun its weapon for the purposes of that shooting attack.

No, it can't be. Because then you're firing its weapon instead of its weapons. That sentence should make sense if you were correct, and it doesn't.

Then it cannot fire because it doesnt have a weapon.

Fragile wrote:
Then it cannot fire because it doesnt have a weapon.

Except it has explicit permission to fire the Quad Gun. So it can, in fact, fire. Yay for actual rules.

Then the Quad gun is its weapon.

Your trying to play semantics over the definition of "its" this whole thread. Either the Quad gun is its weapon, or it cannot fire it.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
If it is (in case you disagree) the Tomb Blade [model] that follows the shooting phase, which of it's weapons is it firing?

None of them. It's firing the Quad Gun instead of its own weapons. As the rule you quoted states:
.

Which makes the Quad gun its weapon for the purposes of that shooting attack.

No, it can't be. Because then you're firing its weapon instead of its weapons. That sentence should make sense if you were correct, and it doesn't.

However that conclusion is grammatically correct when you try to define the term "ITS".

The Tomb Blade fire the Quad Gun instead of its weapons (Emplacement rules).
The Quad Gun is never a weapon that the Tomb Blade is equipped with.

But when you check for the nebuloscope rules, the Tomb blade is undoubtedly firing "its" weapon. Because it is firing the Quad Gun "following the normal rules for shooting".

I really is down to the broad definition of "its".

A) "Its" being the weapons the model has when the game begins, an unmodifiable number of weapons found in the Tomb Blade's "equipment"

B) "Its" being the weapons the model fires during the course of the game. This may vary depending on the weapons being shot by the model.


I'd say "A" is probably the intended answer here, going by the wording of "Nebuloscope". If the wording RAI can ever be guessed....
I can understand the "general *its*", makes sense by RaW, but i would ask your opponent after he reads the rule.

As such, better left as "Decide before your game starts"

Fragile wrote:
Then the Quad gun is its weapon.

Your trying to play semantics over the definition of "its" this whole thread. Either the Quad gun is its weapon, or it cannot fire it.

Not so, and I'm not playing semantics.

The Quad Gun is not its weapon, as the model is not firing its weapons, it's firing the Quad Gun instead. Supported with actual rules.
Please include a relevant rules quote in your next post instead of throwing your toys out of the pram and saying "well it doesn't work so you're wrong." which is all I'm getting out of your recent posts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
But when you check for the nebuloscope rules, the Tomb blade is undoubtedly firing "its" weapon. Because it is firing the Quad Gun "following the normal rules for shooting".

So you're asserting that the model is firing its weapon instead of its weapon?

Are you sure about that?

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
But when you check for the nebuloscope rules, the Tomb blade is undoubtedly firing "its" weapon. Because it is firing the Quad Gun "following the normal rules for shooting".

So you're asserting that the model is firing its weapon instead of its weapon?

Are you sure about that?

Yes, because that is correct:

the model is firing its weapon [Quad Gun] instead of its weapons [Equipment].

" Can you get out of your car but get into your car? " This is still correct if you have 2+ cars.

I understand the usual need for "other", but the RaW still checks out:
"the model is firing its weapon instead of its (*other*) weapons."

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
But when you check for the nebuloscope rules, the Tomb blade is undoubtedly firing "its" weapon. Because it is firing the Quad Gun "following the normal rules for shooting".

So you're asserting that the model is firing its weapon instead of its weapon?

Are you sure about that?

Yes, because that is correct:

the model is firing its weapon [Quad Gun] instead of its weapons [Equipment].

You're inserting a concept that isn't in the actual rules, unless you want to provide a quote.

I understand the usual need for "other", but the RaW still checks out:
"the model is firing its weapon instead of its (*other*) weapons."

Sure, if you add a word you change how the rule works. Big surprise that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
But when you check for the nebuloscope rules, the Tomb blade is undoubtedly firing "its" weapon. Because it is firing the Quad Gun "following the normal rules for shooting".

So you're asserting that the model is firing its weapon instead of its weapon?

Are you sure about that?

Yes, because that is correct:

the model is firing its weapon [Quad Gun] instead of its weapons [Equipment].

You're inserting a concept that isn't in the actual rules, unless you want to provide a quote.

I understand the usual need for "other", but the RaW still checks out:
"the model is firing its weapon instead of its (*other*) weapons."

Sure, if you add a word you change how the rule works. Big surprise that.

The point is, Nebuloscope gives a USR the the model's weapons.

It is either applied at one point: Start of game, or it applies as a constant.

The Quad Gun temporarily becomes the model's weapon, proven by "following the normal rules for shooting". During that shooting phase, the Quad Gun is fired as a weapon the model has, otherwise, as Fragile explains, the model would not be able to shoot it (LoS? Range? etc).

Whether Nebuloscope applies or not i believe is a point of contention. (and definition of "its")

The Quad gun being a weapon that the model has during that shooting phase, however, is not.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Then the Quad gun is its weapon.

Your trying to play semantics over the definition of "its" this whole thread. Either the Quad gun is its weapon, or it cannot fire it.

Not so, and I'm not playing semantics.

The Quad Gun is not its weapon, as the model is not firing its weapons, it's firing the Quad Gun instead. Supported with actual rules.
Please include a relevant rules quote in your next post instead of throwing your toys out of the pram and saying "well it doesn't work so you're wrong." which is all I'm getting out of your recent posts.

The rules have long been cited in this thread. Your claim is that the Quad Gun is not ITS weapon for the purposes of that shooting attack. Your claim is proven wrong. You use the S and AP of the Quad Gun to determine wounding. Show permission to use those values if the Quad Gun is not ITS weapon. ITS weapon has Ignore Cover from the Nebloscope.

There is no RAW supports for ITS =means listed in wargear. Can you even find such a rule. As listed there are numerous examples where units gain Ignore Cover and can apply it to the Quad Gun. Its not like this is the first time that ability has ever been seen. Breaking out the dictionary to break down "its" to claim it cannot is silly at best.

 BlackTalos wrote:
The Quad Gun temporarily becomes the model's weapon, proven by "following the normal rules for shooting". During that shooting phase, the Quad Gun is fired as a weapon the model has, otherwise, as Fragile explains, the model would not be able to shoot it (LoS? Range? etc).

It wouldn't be able to except for the explicit permission to do so.

So yes, if you literally ignore rules it's not possible.

 Happyjew wrote:
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?

Actually, where is this RaW from?

I've been quoting it to show an explanation, but the BrB does not have it so? And if it is from Stronghold Assault, then it would no longer apply?

GUN EMPLACEMENTS

(...)One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons. A model that fires(...)

The meaning does not change (the model is firing the QG instead of his weapon, so the QG is "it's" weapon for that Turn. But the "following the normal rules for shooting" does not exist? (Although i really is redundant? )

Fragile wrote:
Your claim is that the Quad Gun is not ITS weapon for the purposes of that shooting attack. Your claim is proven wrong. You use the S and AP of the Quad Gun to determine wounding. Show permission to use those values if the Quad Gun is not ITS weapon.

"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons."
What does that mean? It means we follow the shooting process.

Step 1 is met.
Step 2 is again met.
Step 3 - the summary mentions "equipped with". Let's look at the full rule.
"First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with." Okay, but we aren't firing a weapon we're equipped with. But we have explicit permission to fire this instead of our own weapons (equipped weapons) so we have permission to select the Quad Gun here.
Step 4 - we have permission to fire the selected weapon and nothing in step 4 telling us otherwise.
Step 5 - same here, we have hits we need to resolve.
Step 6 - repeat of above.

LoS and Range are measured from the firer, and as I've explained we have explicit permission to fire the weapon.
Please, in that process, prove me wrong using a rule. You've asserted that if the Quad Gun is not the model's weapon it cannot fire - prove it using actual rules instead of assertions. I've not seen a single rules quote proving that point, only statements that it's true.

There is no RAW supports for ITS =means listed in wargear. Can you even find such a rule.

I haven't asserted that so it's not relevant. That may be a consequence of the actual rules, but it's not a point I'm trying to prove.

As listed there are numerous examples where units gain Ignore Cover and can apply it to the Quad Gun. Its not like this is the first time that ability has ever been seen.

Also not relevant.

Breaking out the dictionary to break down "its" to claim it cannot is silly at best.

Yeah, making sure everyone is using the word correctly is totally silly.
I didn't break out the dictionary really - I just want to make sure the same definition is used consistently across the two relevant words. It has to be the same definition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
The Quad Gun temporarily becomes the model's weapon, proven by "following the normal rules for shooting". During that shooting phase, the Quad Gun is fired as a weapon the model has, otherwise, as Fragile explains, the model would not be able to shoot it (LoS? Range? etc).

Again, this is absolutely incorrect. As in, there's no rules support for this stance.
Please cite rules supporting the stance as LoS, Range, and "etc" are solved using the normal shooting rules without the Quad Gun being the model's weapon.

The Quad gun being a weapon that the model has during that shooting phase, however, is not.

It obviously is because you keep asserting an incorrect fact that I've proven incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
The Quad Gun temporarily becomes the model's weapon, proven by "following the normal rules for shooting". During that shooting phase, the Quad Gun is fired as a weapon the model has, otherwise, as Fragile explains, the model would not be able to shoot it (LoS? Range? etc).

It wouldn't be able to except for the explicit permission to do so.

So yes, if you literally ignore rules it's not possible.

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

Please define "firing its own weapons", how, replaced by "fire it instead of", would work any differently than the model firing the weapon as "its" weapon.

Correct anything here but:

- Units perform shooting attacks.
- You select a weapon that is fired by a model.
- You follow steps 4 to 6 with that weapon.

RaW:"Typically, a model can only fire a single shooting weapon in the same phase, (...) Once a model has fired its maximum number of weapons, it cannot fire again that phase."

Has the Tomb Blade fired "its" weapon or not?
The above requires that the model fires "its" weapon, otherwise it could shoot with another.

To me, the above is clear: the Tomb Blade has fired "its" Quad Gun. The models has followed all the rules in order to shoot "its" weapon. Whether he has it next turn, or at the beginning of the game is irrelevant.

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

Please define "firing its own weapons", how, replaced by "fire it instead of", would work any differently than the model firing the weapon as "its" weapon.

Correct anything here but:

- Units perform shooting attacks.
- You select a weapon that is fired by a model.
- You follow steps 4 to 6 with that weapon.

Please reword this - I have no idea what you're asking.

RaW:"Typically, a model can only fire a single shooting weapon in the same phase, (...) Once a model has fired its maximum number of weapons, it cannot fire again that phase."

Has the Tomb Blade fired "its" weapon or not?
The above requires that the model fires "its" weapon, otherwise it could shoot with another.

To me, the above is clear: the Tomb Blade has fired "its" Quad Gun. The models has followed all the rules in order to shoot "its" weapon. Whether he has it next turn, or at the beginning of the game is irrelevant.

In the quoted rule, "its" is linked to "maximum number of weapons" not "its weapons". So since the model has fired a Quad Gun, it has fired 1 weapon - which is its maximum number of weapons.

fragile/black talos, you are a bit off on this one,

Rigel2d and others have provided a very clear and consise pair of rules on this one.

they are mutually exclusive,

You cannot both count the quad gun as one of its weapons while at the same time firing the quad gun *instead* of one of its weapons.


its an exclusive clause, no matter how you want to define what "it" means.

 easysauce wrote:
fragile/black talos, you are a bit off on this one,

Rigel2d and others have provided a very clear and consise pair of rules on this one.

they are mutually exclusive,

You cannot both count the quad gun as one of its weapons while at the same time firing the quad gun *instead* of one of its weapons.


its an exclusive clause, no matter how you want to define what "it" means.

It's not exclusive at all. The emplacement rule includes the word "own". The nebuloscope rule does not. So if you define "its" to not require "own" implicitly, then the rules do not conflict.

As I have mentioned numerous times, the possessive form does not require ownership in English, so the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, but not the tomb blades own weapon.

Tekron wrote:
It's not exclusive at all. The emplacement rule includes the word "own". The nebuloscope rule does not. So if you define "its" to not require "own" implicitly, then the rules do not conflict.

As I have mentioned numerous times, the possessive form does not require ownership in English, so the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, but not the tomb blades own weapon.

And you've utterly failed to provide rules support for your statement.
I've provided rules support showing that it is not the tomb blades weapon.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tekron wrote:
It's not exclusive at all. The emplacement rule includes the word "own". The nebuloscope rule does not. So if you define "its" to not require "own" implicitly, then the rules do not conflict.

As I have mentioned numerous times, the possessive form does not require ownership in English, so the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, but not the tomb blades own weapon.

And you've utterly failed to provide rules support for your statement.
I've provided rules support showing that it is not the tomb blades weapon.

You havent. You simply show the permission for the unit to use the weapon for shooting instead of the weapons listed in the wargear. The QG becomes the Tomb Blades weapon for the purposes of the shooting attack.

Tekron wrote:
As I have mentioned numerous times, the possessive form does not require ownership in English, so the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, but not the tomb blades own weapon.

I think you are going to have to prove this with some grammar or linguistics to resolve this discussion. I think the onus is at least as much upon you to prove the wording does not specify ownership or being equipped (as ordinary English at a glance suggests) as it is for us to prove that it does.

Compare these two sentences:

"The Tomb Blade is firing its Gauss Blaster."

"The Tomb Blade is firing its Quad Gun."

I don't know about anyone else but the second sentence reads plain wrong to me, given what I know of how a Quad Gun is fired. What would be correct to say, given the known context of a model firing a Quad Gun, is:

"The Tomb Blade is firing the Quad Gun (instead of its own weapon)."

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Tekron wrote:
As I have mentioned numerous times, the possessive form does not require ownership in English, so the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, but not the tomb blades own weapon.

I think you are going to have to prove this with some grammar or linguistics to resolve this discussion. I think the onus is at least as much upon you to prove the wording does not specify ownership or being equipped (as ordinary English at a glance suggests) as it is for us to prove that it does.

Compare these two sentences:

"The Tomb Blade is firing its Gauss Blaster."

"The Tomb Blade is firing its Quad Gun."

I don't know about anyone else but the second sentence reads plain wrong to me, given what I know of how a Quad Gun is fired. What would be correct to say, given the known context of a model firing a Quad Gun, is:

"The Tomb Blade is firing the Quad Gun (instead of its own weapon)."

And now, with support of the shooting phase i will not quote in its entirety:
When a Unit is selected for a Shooting attack, the models select their ("its") weapons for the shooting attack.

Or, as a simple question:

Which one of "its" weapon is the Unit firing?
(It has to be "its" weapon because the model is firing it, the Quad Gun does not fire itself)

Ie, i think the conclusion Fragile, Tekron and I are coming to(correct me here):

Per the RaW, a Unit may only ever fire "its" weapons. (Else you could have Unit A fire Unit B's weapons)

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

The above does not modify the RaW that the Unit must fire "its" weapons, it only replaces which weapon it can fire. How does the Unit fire "its" own weapons? It fires the Quad gun in the same way (with the same rules: The rules for shooting, steps 4-6). If the quad gun fired itself, using Range, Los, and BS of any model close enough, then you would be correct. However in this case, it is the model (IE the Unit) which is performing the shooting. And their shooting weapons have Ignore Cover.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

Please define "firing its own weapons", how, replaced by "fire it instead of", would work any differently than the model firing the weapon as "its" weapon.

Please reword this - I have no idea what you're asking.

Correct anything here but:

- Units perform shooting attacks.
- You select a weapon that is fired by a model.
- You follow steps 4 to 6 with that weapon.RaW:"Typically, a model can only fire a single shooting weapon in the same phase, (...) Once a model has fired its maximum number of weapons, it cannot fire again that phase."

Has the Tomb Blade fired "its" weapon or not?
The above requires that the model fires "its" weapon, otherwise it could shoot with another.

To me, the above is clear: the Tomb Blade has fired "its" Quad Gun. The models has followed all the rules in order to shoot "its" weapon. Whether he has it next turn, or at the beginning of the game is irrelevant.

In the quoted rule, "its" is linked to "maximum number of weapons" not "its weapons". So since the model has fired a Quad Gun, it has fired 1 weapon - which is its maximum number of weapons.

No, the "its" above indeed refers to the model firing a weapon.
The answer to "Who has fired its maximum number of weapons?"
Is: [The model]

The phrase is: "Once a model has fired [The model]s maximum number of weapons, [The model] cannot fire again that phase."

I mean i though "its" was clear at this point but it seems not. What is "its"?

the possessive form of it (used as an attributive adjective)

What is "it" ? [The model]

So, the Raw:

"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of [The model]s ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [a gun emplacement] instead of firing his own weapon"
"Once a model has fired [The model]s maximum number of weapons, [The model] cannot fire again that phase."

They all come down to the same thing in the end:

On a turn in which [The model] fires the Quad gun, instead of [The model]s own weapons, [The model] is still firing the quad gun.
Which can mean that [The model]s weapons have Ignore Cover, via Nebuloscope.

Unless you have a better definition for "IT"? One which does not mean [The model].

 BlackTalos wrote:
And now, with support of the shooting phase i will not quote in its entirety:
When a Unit is selected for a Shooting attack, the models select their ("its") weapons for the shooting attack.

This is not correct; weapon selection specifies "a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with."

The Quad Gun is fired instead of one of the model's own weapons, or alternatively stated as instead of one of the weapons the model is equipped with.

We are given permission then to fire a weapon other than the model's weapon, so how can the Quad Gun be the model's?

Again, I think this needs to wait for Tekron's grammatical or linguistic explanation because I'm failing to see the logical leap otherwise.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
And now, with support of the shooting phase i will not quote in its entirety:
When a Unit is selected for a Shooting attack, the models select their ("its") weapons for the shooting attack.

This is not correct; weapon selection specifies "a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with."

The Quad Gun is fired instead of one of the model's own weapons, or alternatively stated as instead of one of the weapons the model is equipped with.

We are given permission then to fire a weapon other than the model's weapon, so how can the Quad Gun be the model's?

Again, I think this needs to wait for Tekron's grammatical or linguistic explanation because I'm failing to see the logical leap otherwise.

You are given permission then to fire a weapon other than the model's weapon. How does that weapon fire? Does the Quad Gun shoot itself (using some of the model's characteristics)?

Or, does the model shoot the gun?

If it is the later, could you answer this:
What weapon is it (the model) shooting?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, please say if the following statement is correct or incorrect, after the Tomb Blade has shot the Quad Gun:

--> The Tomb Blade model #3 has fired its weapon in this phase. It may not shoot again. <--

Is this statement True or False?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Tekron wrote:
As I have mentioned numerous times, the possessive form does not require ownership in English, so the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, but not the tomb blades own weapon.

I think you are going to have to prove this with some grammar or linguistics to resolve this discussion. I think the onus is at least as much upon you to prove the wording does not specify ownership or being equipped (as ordinary English at a glance suggests) as it is for us to prove that it does.

Compare these two sentences:

"The Tomb Blade is firing its Gauss Blaster."

"The Tomb Blade is firing its Quad Gun."

I don't know about anyone else but the second sentence reads plain wrong to me, given what I know of how a Quad Gun is fired. What would be correct to say, given the known context of a model firing a Quad Gun, is:

"The Tomb Blade is firing the Quad Gun (instead of its own weapon)."

Well the problem with your example is that they are both correct, well formed sentences. It may feel wrong to you but grammatically it is fine.

Now for the linguistics, fair enough, I will make an attempt to back up my position.

You'll have to forgive me for using wikipedia here, but I don't have time to start thinking up too many examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possessive


These are just a few examples where possession exists linguistically without any sense of ownership. To create one more on point, we could say:

"The gunner fires his artillery piece" which is analogous to the quad gun situation for obvious reasons. We could use "its" or "their" instead of "his" to remain gender neutral, but that doesn't sound as natural. The gunner is unlikely to own the artillery piece of course, because mostly they are owned by the government that created the military the gunner is a part of. But there is still a possessive relationship between the gunner and the gun. It is his gun for the purpose of firing it, and he is the guns gunner.

"The artillery piece fires its shell a long distance" is a case where an inanimate object has a relationship with another object, neither of which can be considered to own the other, but nevertheless are described with possessive language.

"The shell is kept stable in its flight by spinning" is an example of an inanimate object possessing the action which it is undergoing. The shell does not own its flight, it simply experiences it.


We know that the nebuloscope rule does not explicitely specify ownership as a requirement for its application, so we just need to create a possessive relationship between the tomb blade and the quad gun, which is done by firing the gun instead of its own weapon.

the grammer you are trying to use as proof, is not correct grammar wise as you may think it to be.

its also akin to breaking this tenant, as you are putting your interpretation of "correct" grammer over actual *rules* that rigel, I , and others have brought to your attention.

Come up with a *rules* bases argument, not a subjective grammar based one, with inherent flaws in it.


6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

BlackTalos wrote:You are given permission then to fire a weapon other than the model's weapon. How does that weapon fire? Does the Quad Gun shoot itself (using some of the model's characteristics)?

Or, does the model shoot the gun?

If it is the later, could you answer this:
What weapon is it (the model) shooting?

It is shooting the Quad Gun, clearly, however that does not prove the Quad Gun is the model's weapon, merely that it is shooting or shot the Quad Gun.

Also, please say if the following statement is correct or incorrect, after the Tomb Blade has shot the Quad Gun:

--> The Tomb Blade model #3 has fired its weapon in this phase. It may not shoot again. <--

Is this statement True or False?

In context it is incorrect; we know the Quad Gun is not the model's weapon but is in fact a Quad Gun and per the rules for Quad Guns is actually no model's weapon. If we were in a situation where we did not know any better then absolutely correct.

Tekron wrote:Well the problem with your example is that they are both correct, well formed sentences. It may feel wrong to you but grammatically it is fine.

I could say "The Tomb Blade is firing its Power Sword" and it would be grammatically correct, but rules require correct context beyond mere grammatical correctness.

"The gunner fires his artillery piece" which is analogous to the quad gun situation for obvious reasons. We could use "its" or "their" instead of "his" to remain gender neutral, but that doesn't sound as natural. The gunner is unlikely to own the artillery piece of course, because mostly they are owned by the government that created the military the gunner is a part of. But there is still a possessive relationship between the gunner and the gun. It is his gun for the purpose of firing it, and he is the guns gunner.

Except this is not analogous to this situation. A gunner has an assignment to an artillery piece and has a recognised, contextually permanent relationship with it. Additionally an artillery piece is exactly what an artillery gunner (almost) always exclusively is expected to fire. If an artillery gunner borrowed Joe's flamethrower you would not say he shot his flamethrower because he is an artillery gunner and does not have a flamethrower; the flamethrower is Joe's. Unless Joe were dead maybe, but that brings the "borrowing" into question

A Tomb Blade is not a Quad Gun gunner and is not assigned to a Quad Gun, nor does it have any other permanent relationship in the context of the game to which the possessive can be correctly applied in this way.

In context it is incorrect to describe the Quad Gun as the Tomb Blade's.

We know that the nebuloscope rule does not explicitely specify ownership as a requirement for its application, so we just need to create a possessive relationship between the tomb blade and the quad gun, which is done by firing the gun instead of its own weapon.

Given that the Quad Gun cannot correctly be described as the Tomb Blade's I don't think this is relevant, but I don't think you've actually proven the Nebuloscope does not require ownership.